WPCJ [xXMmMOWi+KuK_2il+Tl7QWwqJ Ok[ܗ1`VEfi.ք6?FY'b`84^qczJ!d::ԗy9+.i[ Oآmo͂PEVC 0e wOE'X"oLìJ.[{=m0`{>QkGNvg] Ѻ.{*wyJN] xE[&,GpQkNE<8_S˱_H٨vl[&>SYG #֎w]PN ̚6~z"Rf壗e֘Q?v;ټN6"Ajpq"vu|󿶱CKa))oM Nี%S*VyIE(]71yR:Chw# %K UNQ 0 UN' 0u 0F z [ 0N- 0D{U>fc){NWW 0YE 0  0 0 0'b 0*** 1u 724^ fwr4v m 0U 0 0 0 0n! 0'" 0"b# 0# 06$ 0$ 0d% 0&& 0& 0' 0YN( 0( 0K) 0) 0* 0+ 0+ 0O, 0 - 0>- 0 . 0/ 0/ 00 01 02 1ek3 03 04 02\5N555N5555N5 0555N6 B66 06 D3X7 D-7 0K7 08 AS8R9 0: 0D: A; 0:;;; 0_; 0 D<D< 0N= 0> B*@ D/A 0/A D/5C 0dC 062D 0hD 0:pE 0^E 0<FU6DFU*zF F\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular*GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(O$(#$  0  \  `&Times New Roman \\R3'Avery 5163 Shipping\сLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  RJo$      2  m  _Inhisreplybrief,thedefendant,citingDaniel,12S.W.3dat428,arguesthat [s]houldtheCourtrulethat[the]  TrialCourterredindenyingtheMotiontoSuppress,alloftheevidenceagainsttheAppellantwouldbefruitofthe t poisonoustreeandtheconvictionagainstAppellantmustbevacatedandthechargesdismissed.InDaniel,oursupreme 8 courtdeterminedthattheofficerdidnothaveprobablecauseto seizethedefendantbyretaininghisidentificationto L runacomputercheckforoutstandingwarrants.Accordingly,themarijuana,foundonthedefendantspersonashewas  searchedpursuanttohisarrest,wassuppressedandthechargesdismissed.Bycontrast,inthepresentappeal,evidence  wasobtainedfromthetimeoffirstcontactbetweentheofficerandthedefendant.However,thetrialcourtwasnotasked H  tosortoutwhichevidencewouldbesuppressedifthearrestwasdeterminedtobeillegal.*AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #   X RJo$      1  m  _Atvariousplacesintherecord,thecitizenslastnameissaidtobe Collinsor Colloms.Wehaveadopted  thelatterspellingbecauseitisusedbybothpartiesintheirbriefs.*)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)Ql/ b.*:i+003|x U*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h - -*)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` 64Hyperlink    (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE  (|G2Jo$ !.8Zdd8         0  m d(|3G$ !.8Zdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ,dl*CODEKt<6X9`(Courier NewKS \  `&Times New RomanS^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Zdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK42Emphasis<:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kt<6X9`(Courier NewKS \  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Kt<6X9`(Courier NewKS \  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7k(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?u%2A`Arial?  S \  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dj)1dxd<:zTop of For7m(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?u%2A`Arial?  S \  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  j)2dxd0KS.SampleKt<6X9`(Courier NewKS \  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKt<6X9`(Courier NewKS \  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial McKENZIE BebbTiptonKonvalinkaFindleyHoffer T.R.warrantlessCollomsGlenwood DUIdispositive CrimT.R.A.P.q]uestions OdomYeargant]hatCamaraSneedBosticarticulableRobinetteMelsonAguilarSpinelliTransouAvantiBruderBerkemerMcCartyWaldrumJimmersonMirandizeEstes h]e TCA n]o Oody o]neiC]ourtsLaFave W]eE]venBinettenonuseunwelcomedBostickSupercenterbreathalyzer Thad A]ns]hould !.8Zdd8     _   Z8XXdd8 ON@ttSZINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#ZS#Ԉ &   August19,2003Session L XXZ #ZXX#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.STEVEMcKENZIEXXZ  J  DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforBradleyCounty  J No._M_01419R.StevenBebb,Judge  6 AV) ` dE<` A   No.E200203029CCAR3CD   December3,_2003_   AV) ` dE<|` A }   XXXX  Thedefendant,SteveMcKenzie,pledguiltytoDUI,aClassAmisdemeanor,andviolationofthe x  opencontainerlaw,aClassCmisdemeanor,andwassentenced,respectively,toconcurrent d sentencesofelevenmonths,twentyninedays,allsuspendedexceptforsevendays,andthirtydays, P tobeservedonprobation.Asaconditionofhisguiltypleas,thedefendantreservedtwocertified < questionsoflaw:(1)whetherthetrialcourtshouldhavedismissedthechargesororderedanother (x preliminaryhearingbecausethetaperecordingoftheinitialhearingwasinaudible;and(2)whether d thetrialcourterredindenyinghismotiontosuppressevidenceobtainedastheresultofhisalleged P illegalarrest.Onappeal,thedefendantpursuedonlythesecondquestion,whichtheStatearguesis < notdispositiveofthecharges,resultinginthismatternotproperlybeingbeforethecourt.Weagree ( thatthecertifiedquestionisnotdispositiveand,accordingly,dismisstheappeal.  #XXXX##ZXX~#XXZ Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;AppealDismissed     #ZX #XX.ZAlanE.Glenn,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJosephM.TiptonandJohn t EverettWilliams,JJ.,joined. ` JohnP.KonvalinkaandDavidM.Elliott,Chattanooga,Tennessee;andM.DrewRobinson, 8!  Cleveland,Tennessee,fortheappellant,SteveMcKenzie. $"t! PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;DavidH.Findley,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; #L# JerryN.Estes,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andJosephV.Hoffer,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral, $8 $ fortheappellee,StateofTennessee.#ZXXJ #XXZԀ %$!%  @@OO& OPINION #ZXX #XXZ '"' #ZXX #  XXZXXXX   FACTS  )$) 7      OnFebruary19,2001,thedefendantwasarrestedforDUIandviolationoftheopencontainer \+&+ law,withthechargesbeingboundovertothegrandjuryfollowingapreliminaryhearingandthe H,', defendantslaterbeingindictedforDUIandviolationoftheopencontainerlaw.Subsequently,the 4-(- _defendantobtainedthetaperecordingmadeduringthepreliminaryhearingandfoundthatitwas  inaudible.Hefiledamotionforanotherpreliminaryhearingseeking,aswell,suppressionof  evidenceresultingfromhisallegedillegalarrest.Followingahearing,thetrialcourtdeniedthe  motionthatthedefendantbegivenanotherpreliminaryhearing. t   Thetrialcourtconductedanevidentiaryhearing,aswell,onthedefendantsmotionto L  suppressevidenceobtainedastheresultofhisarrest,atwhichKeithCallahan,thearrestingofficer, 8  wastheonlywitness.HesaidthathewascontactedbyapolicedispatcheronFebruary19,2001, $ t andtoldthatacitizenhadreportedanintoxicateddriverwhoranastopsignandwasdriving  ` erratically.Thedispatchergavehimthenameofthedriverandthelicensetagnumberanddirected  L  himtowardthedriverslocation.Thecitizen,PennyColloms,  #  1      ׀continuedtobeincontactwiththe  8  dispatcherwhileshefollowedthedefendantsvehicle.AsOfficerCallahanproceededdown $  GlenwoodRoad,thefinallocationgiventohim,hewasflaggeddownbyMs.Colloms,who   informedhimthatshewasthepersonwhocalledthepolice.Shesaidthatshehadfollowedthe   vehiclesittinginaparticulardriveway,wherethedriverhadgottenoutofthevehicleandgoneinto   thecarport.ThiswasthefirsttimethatOfficerCallahansawthedefendant,andhealsorecalledthat   Ms.Collomsmayhavetoldhimthatthedefendantsdrivingwaserratic.AfterspeakingwithOfficer p Callahan,Ms.Collomsleftthescene.Callahansaidthathehadnotusedhisbluelightsashe \ respondedtothecallfromthedispatcher. H   OfficerCallahansaiditwasdarkwhenhefirstobservedthedefendant;andnolightswere  p oninthecarport.Thedefendantwasaboutfiftyfeetfromthevehicle,whichhadalicensetag  \ numbermatchingthatrelayedbythedispatcher.Afterhewalkeddownthedriveway,Callahan H determinedthatneithertheenginenorthelightsofthedefendantscarwereon,althoughthehood 4 wasstillhot.     OfficerCallahanhadabriefconversationwiththedefendant,tellinghimthathewasthere  toinvestigateacallabouthisdriving.Heaskedtoseethedefendantsidentification,observingthat  hewasunstableonhisfeetandleaningonarail.Callahanobservedthatthedefendantwasholding  acupandspillingitscontentsastheytalked.Askedwhatwasinthecup,thedefendantresponded l thatitcontainedrumandcoke.Whenaskedifthecarinthedrivewaywashisandwhetherhehad X  drivenittothatlocation,thedefendantansweredaffirmatively.OfficerCallahanobservedthatthe D! defendantsspeechwasslowandslurred,andhiseyeswereredandglassy.Astothedefendants 0"  abilitytothink,OfficerCallahanresponded, Anyquestionsaskedheseemedtobevery,very,slow. #l! Hewouldactuallyhavetostop.Andyoucouldactually,Imean,excusemypun,almostseethe $X" wheelsturning,himactuallyhavingtocollectthethoughtsbeforehecouldspeak.Callahansaid $D # thathedidnotengageinanyconductthatwouldhaveledthedefendanttobelievehewasunder %0!$ arrest.#XXXX#XXXX &"%   '#&   Whileinthecarport,OfficerCallahanadministeredfourfieldsobrietyteststothedefendant,   notadvisinghimofhisMirandarightsorplacinghimunderarrest.Hefirstadministeredthe  horizontalgazetest,whichhehadtoexplaintothedefendantseveraltimes.Callahansaidthat,  duringtheABCtest,thedefendantmissedthelettersG,L,andMandkeptstartingover,despite t requeststofinish.Thedefendanthadahardtimecomprehendingthefingercounttest,whichwas ` explainedtohimatleastfourtimes.Callahandescribedthedefendantsproblemswiththetest: He L  couldnotgethisthumbtohisfingers,ifhecouldhewouldsayone[or]three,andthenwouldnot 8  evengetallfournumbersout.Whenaskedtostandononeleg,thedefendantsaidhecouldnot $ t performthetest.OfficerCallahansaidthatheonlyadministeredfour,ratherthantheusualfive,  ` fieldsobrietytestsbecausethedefendantsaidhecouldnotcontinue.Callahanthenarrestedthe  L  defendantforDUIandviolationoftheopencontainerlaw.Pattingthedefendantdown,Officer  8  Callahanfoundthekeystothedefendantscarinhisfrontleftpocket. $    Followingthehearing,thetrialcourtfoundthatthearrestofthedefendantwaslawfuland,   subsequently,thedefendantenteredguiltypleasforDUIandviolationoftheopencontainerlaw.   Aspartofthisplea,hereservedcertifiedquestionsoflawforappealastowhetherhewasentitled   toanotherpreliminaryhearingandwhetherthetrialcourterredindeterminingthathisarrestwas p lawful. \    ANALYSIS 4  '  ( F(03?+ ` hp x X?#XXXX#    Thedefendantsmotiontosuppresssoughttohave hisarrest...declaredillegalandall  \ fruitsthereofsuppressed.Thetrialcourtswrittenorderdenyingthemotiontosuppressfound,in H part,asfollows: 4 8  8`    ThiscausecametobeheardonMarch28,2002,uponthe   defendantsmotiontosuppressevidenceobtainedafteranillegal  arrest.ThisCourtfindsthatthedefensemotioniswithoutmerit.  ThisCourtspecificallyfindsthatforthepurposeofthehearingthere  wassufficientevidencethatthedefendantwasintoxicatedtoprovide l OfficerCallahanwithlegalgroundstoarrestthedefendant. X  Additionally,thisCourtfindsthattheClevelandPoliceDepartment D! couldhavebeensubjecttocivilliabilityifthedefendantwasnot 0"  arrestedandthedefendantproceededtocauseanautomobileaccident #l! aftercomingintocontactwithOfficerCallahan.Finally,thisCourt $X" alsofindsthatthisarrestisakintoa citizensarrestpursuantto $D # TCA407109andTCA407113.%0!$` x` x   TheStatearguesonappealthatthedefendantscertifiedquestionisnotdispositive,resulting '#& inthedefendantsappealnotproperlybeingbeforethiscourt.Thedefendantsmotion,theState (#' asserts,soughttosuppressevidenceresultingfromhisillegalarrest,andthetrialcourtwasasked )$( todetermineonlywhetherthedefendantwaslawfullyarrested,notwhenhewas seized.Without |*%) thisdetermination,accordingtotheStatesargument,itcannotbeascertainedwhetherthe h+&* defendantsadmissions,thathehadbeendrinkingrumandcokeandhadjustdrivenintothe  driveway,wouldbesuppressedevenifthearrestwereillegal.Respondingtothisargument,the  defendantassertsthathewasarrestedwhen essentiallycorneredbyOfficerCallahanandordered  tostepawayfromthedoorandcometohimforquestioning.Accordingtothedefendant, [n]o t reasonablepersonwouldfeelfreetosimplydisregardtheofficerinthissituationandgoabouthis ` business.Additionally,hearguesthatOfficerCallahandidnothaveabasisforcomingdownthe L  drivewaytothecarport,sayingthatCallahandidso fornootherreasonthantosearchandseizethe 8  [defendant]withoutawarrant. $ t   Inourreviewofthisissue,wefirstwillconsiderthedefendantsargumentthatOfficer  L  Callahanwasnotentitledtoenterthepropertyofthedefendantsexwife.SinceCallahanwasthe  8  onlywitnessatthesuppressionhearing,therecordcontainsnoproofastowhythedefendantwas $  inthedrivewayofhisexwife,whether,forinstance,hehadbeeninvited,orwasanunwelcomeor   unexpectedvisitor.Thus,thedefendantsprobleminarguingthatOfficerCallahanhadnorightto   comedownthedrivewayisthatthedefendantdidnotfirstestablishthathehadstandingtoobject   totheentryontothepremisesbytheofficer.Statev.Oody,823S.W.2d554,560(Tenn.Crim.App.   1991)( Onewhochallengesthereasonablenessofasearchorseizurehastheinitialburdenof p establishingalegitimateexpectationofprivacyintheplacewherepropertyissearched.). \ Accordingly,thedefendantcannotnowcomplainthatOfficerCallahancouldnotcomeontothe H premisesforhe,himself,didnotestablishanybasisforbeingontheproperty,otherthanthathisex 4 wiferesidedthere.Thus,thedefendantfailedtoestablishthathehadalegitimateexpectationof  p privacyinthepremises.  \   Onappeal,thedefendantarguesthatOfficerCallahanwasnotentitledtoarresthimbased 4 uponinformationfromPennyCollomsbecausehe didnotundertakeanyanalysistodetermine[her]   reliabilityasaninformant....[H]edidnotknow[her]andwasnotfamiliarwithhernameor   anythingabouther.    OursupremecourtexplainedinStatev.Stevens,989S.W.2d290(Tenn.1999),thereasons  whyinformationreceivedfromacitizendiffersfromthatfromaninformant: l 8  8`    [A]nordinarycitizenwhoreportsacrimewhichhasbeencommitted D! inhispresence,orthatacrimeisbeingorwillbecommitted,stands 0"  onmuchdifferentgroundthanapoliceinformer.Heisawitnessto #l! criminalactivitywhoactswithanintenttoaidthepoliceinlaw $X" enforcementbecauseofhisconcernforsocietyorforhisownsafety. $D # Hedoesnotexpectanygainorconcessioninexchangeforhis %0!$ information.Aninformerofthistypeusuallywouldnothavemore &"% thanoneopportunitytosupplyinformationtothepolice,thereby '#& precludingproofofhisreliabilitybypointingtopreviousaccurate (#' informationwhichhehassupplied.)$(` x` x Id.at294(quotingStatev.Smith,867S.W.2d343,347(Tenn.Crim.App.1993)). h+&*    `   OfficerCallahanhadlearnedfromthedispatcherthatPennyCollomssaidshehadobserved  thedefendantdrivinginsuchamannerthatheappearedtobeintoxicated,andshewasfollowing  him.Callahanwenttothelocationshegave,spokebrieflywithher,andthenwalkeddownthe t drivewaytospeakwiththedefendant.Underthesecircumstances,thereisnobasisforour ` concludingthatMs.CollomswasnotasthecourtdescribedinStevens,anordinarycitizenwhowas L  awitnesstoacrimeandexpectednogainorconcessionfortheinformationshegave.Accordingly, 8  itwasunnecessaryforOfficerCallahantodetermineherreliabilityotherwisebeforeapproaching $ t thedefendant.  `   Next,wewillascertainwhethertheadmissibilityofthedefendantsstatementstoOfficer  8  Callahanwasdependentuponthelegalityofthearrest,thedefendantcontendingthathewasin $  custodyfromthetimethatCallahanapproachedhim.     InStatev.Daniel,12S.W.3d420(Tenn.2000),oursupremecourtreviewedthevarying   typesofinteractionswhichmayoccurbetweenalawenforcementofficerandacitizen:   8  8`   [C]ourtshaverecognizedthreedistincttypesofpolice-citizen \ interactions:(1)afullscalearrestwhichmustbesupportedby H probablecause;(2)abriefinvestigatorydetentionwhichmustbe 4 supportedbyreasonablesuspicion;and(3)briefpolice-citizen  p encounterswhichrequirenoobjectivejustification.Whilearrestsand  \ investigatorydetentionsimplicatevaryingdegreesofconstitutional H protection,"notallpersonalintercoursebetweenpolicemenand 4 citizensinvolves'seizures'ofpersons.Onlywhentheofficer,by   meansofphysicalforceorshowofauthority,hasinsomeway   restrainedthelibertyofacitizenmayweconcludethata'seizure'has  occurred."` x` x Id.at424(quotingTerryv.Ohio,392U.S.1,19n.16,88S.Ct.1868,1879n.16(1968)). l   QuotingFloridav.Bostick,501U.S.429,440,111S.Ct.2382,2389,115L.Ed.2d389 D! (1991),theDanielcourtexplainedhowthenatureofanencountermayberecognized: Inorder 0"  todeterminewhetheraparticularencounterconstitutesaseizure,acourtmustconsiderallthe #l! circumstancessurroundingtheencountertodeterminewhetherpoliceconductwouldhave $X" communicatedtoareasonablepersonthatthepersonwasnotfreetodeclinetheofficer'srequestor $D # otherwiseterminatetheencounter.12S.W.3dat425. %0!$   Inmakingthisdetermination,thefollowingfactorsshouldbeconsidered: '#& 8  8`   Someofthefactorswhicharerelevantandshouldbeconsideredby )$( courtswhenapplyingthistotalityofthecircumstancestestinclude |*%) thetime,placeandpurposeoftheencounter;thewordsusedbythe h+&* officer;theofficer'stoneofvoiceandgeneraldemeanor;theofficer's  statementstootherswhowerepresentduringtheencounter;the  threateningpresenceofseveralofficers;thedisplayofaweaponby  anofficer;andthephysicaltouchingofthepersonofthecitizen.t` x` x Id.at42526. L    ThecourtinDanielthenappliedtheconsiderationstothefactsbeingreviewedinthatmatter, $ t concludingthat socialpressuretocooperatewithalawenforcementofficerdidnottransforman  ` encounterintoaseizure:  L  8  8`   [W]econcludethatOfficerWright'sconductinmerelyapproaching $  thedefendant,inquiringwhatwasgoingon,andaskingtosee   Daniel'sidentificationdidnotconstituteaseizureasthattermis   definedintheconstitutionalcontext.Althoughtheevidenceinthe   recordisminimal,itappearsthattheinitialencounterwasnot   accompaniedbyphysicalforceorashowofauthority.Therewasno p evidencethatOfficerWrighteitherdrewaweapon,orderedDanielto \ stopandanswerquestions,ordemandedthatDanielproduce H identification.Moreover,therewasnoevidencethatWright 4 physicallyrestrainedDaniel,instructedhimnottowalkaway,or  p blockedhispath.Theencounterdidnotbecomeaseizuresimply  \ becauseDanielmayhavefeltinherentsocialpressuretocooperate H withOfficerWright.4` x` x Id.at42627(footnoteomitted).     Subsequently,applyingthetotalityofthecircumstancesstandardtoasituationinwhichan  officerpursuedafleeingsuspect,thecourtdeterminedinStatev.Randolph,74S.W.3d330(Tenn.  2002),thatthedefendantwas seizedwhenfirstcommandedtohalt: l 8  8`   [E]venthoughOfficerHarringtondidnotinitiallydrawaweaponor D! makephysicalcontact,weconcludethatRandolphwas"seized"when 0"  theofficermadeashowofauthoritybyactivatingthebluelightson #l! hispatrolcarandinstructinghimtostop.SeeStatev.Daniel,12 $X" S.W.3dat426("verballyordersacitizentostopandanswer $D # questions");Statev.Binette,33S.W.3d[215,]218[Tenn.2000] %0!$ ("Uponturningonthebluelightsofavehicle,apoliceofficerhas &"% clearlyinitiatedastopandhasseizedthesubjectofthestop...."); '#& Statev.Pulley,863S.W.2d[29,]30[Tenn.1993]("Whenanofficer (#' turnsonhisbluelights,heorshehasclearlyinitiatedastop.").In )$( sum,inviewofallofthecircumstances,areasonablepersonwould |*%) havebelievedhewasnotfreetoleavethesceneorwalkawayfrom h+&* theofficer.Accordingly,weholdthatthedefendantwas"seized"for  thepurposeofarticleI,7oftheTennesseeConstitutionandthatthe  trialcourtwascorrectinsuppressingtheevidence.` x` x Id.at338(footnoteomitted). `   OfficerCallahantestifiedthathewasalone,hadnotactivatedhisbluelights,andspoketo 8  thedefendantinaconversationaltone.Callahanhadnotdrawnhisweaponortouchedthe $ t defendant.Accordingly,weconcludethatthedefendanthadnotbeen seizedasCallahantalked  ` withhim.Thus,thedefendantsadmissionsthathewasdrinkingrumandcokeandhaddriventhe  L  vehicleintothedriveway,aswellasCallahansobservationsofthedefendantsslurredspeechand  8  difficultyinstanding,alloccurredbeforeCallahanadministeredthefieldsobrietytestswhich, $  themselves,precededthedefendantbeingtoldthathewasunderarrest.Inviewofthisfinding,we   nextwilldeterminewhether,astheStateargues,thecertifiedquestionsarenotdispositiveofthe   charges,resultingintheappealnotbeingproperlybeforethecourt.     Rule37(b)(2)oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedureprovidesthatanappealliesfrom p anyjudgmentofconvictionuponapleaofguiltyornolocontendereif: \ 8  8`    (i)thedefendantenteredintoapleaagreementunderRule 4 11(e)butexplicitlyreservedwiththeconsentofthestateandofthe  p courttherighttoappealacertifiedquestionoflawthatisdispositive  \ ofthecase,andthefollowingrequirementsaremet:8@` x` x8 @ (A)thejudgmentofconviction,orother H documenttowhichsuchjudgmentrefersthatisfiledbeforethenoticeofappeal,mustcontaina 4 statementofthecertifiedquestionoflawreservedbydefendantforappellatereview;(B)the   questionoflawmustbestatedinthejudgmentordocumentsoastoidentifyclearlythescopeand   limitsofthelegalissuereserved;(C)thejudgmentordocumentmustreflectthatthecertified  questionwasexpresslyreservedwiththeconsentofthestateandthetrialjudge;and(D)the  judgmentordocumentmustreflectthatthedefendant,thestate,andthetrialjudgeareoftheopinion  thatthecertifiedquestionisdispositiveofthecase; l    ` .... D! 8  8`    (iv)thedefendantexplicitlyreservedwiththeconsentofthe #l! courttherighttoappealacertifiedquestionoflawthatisdispositive $X" ofthecase,andtherequirementsofsubsection(i)aremet,exceptthe $D # judgmentordocumentneednotreflectthestate'sconsenttothe %0!$ appealorthestate'sopinionthatthequestionisdispositive.&"%` x` x Tenn.R.Crim.P.37(b)(2)(i),(iv). (#'   InStatev.Preston,759S.W.2d647(Tenn.1988),oursupremecourtexplainedthe |*%) conditionswhichadefendantmustmeettoproperlypreserveanissueoflawpursuanttoRule37: h+&* Ї8  8`    ThisisanappropriatetimeforthisCourttomakeexplicitto  thebenchandbarexactlywhattheappellatecourtswillhereafter  requireasprerequisitestotheconsiderationofthemeritsofa  questionoflawcertifiedpursuanttoTenn.R.Crim.P.37(b)(2)(i)or t (iv).Regardlessofwhathasappearedinpriorpetitions,orders, ` colloquyinopencourtorotherwise,thefinalorderorjudgmentfrom L  whichthetimebeginstoruntopursueaT.R.A.P.3appealmust 8  containastatementofthedispositivecertifiedquestionoflaw $ t reservedbydefendantforappellatereviewandthequestionoflaw  ` mustbestatedsoastoclearlyidentifythescopeandthelimitsofthe  L  legalissuereserved.Forexample,wherequestionsoflawinvolvethe  8  validityofsearchesandtheadmissibilityofstatementsand $  confessions,etc.,thereasonsrelieduponbydefendantinthetrial   courtatthesuppressionhearingmustbeidentifiedinthestatementof   thecertifiedquestionoflawandreviewbytheappellatecourtswill   belimitedtothosepasseduponbythetrialjudgeandstatedinthe   certifiedquestion,absentaconstitutionalrequirementotherwise. p Withoutanexplicitstatementofthecertifiedquestion,neitherthe \ defendant,theStatenorthetrialjudgecanmakeameaningful H determinationofwhethertheissuesoughttobereviewedis 4 dispositiveofthecase.Mostofthereportedandunreportedcases  p seekingthelimitedappellatereviewpursuanttoTenn.R.Crim.P.37  \ havebeendismissedbecausethecertifiedquestionwasnot H dispositive.Also,theordermuststatethatthecertifiedquestionwas 4 expresslyreservedaspartofapleaagreement,thattheStateandthe   trialjudgeconsentedtothereservationandthattheStateandthetrial   judgeareoftheopinionthatthequestionisdispositiveofthecase.  Ofcourse,theburdenisondefendanttoseethattheseprerequisites  areinthefinalorderandthattherecordbroughttotheappellate  courtscontainsalloftheproceedingsbelowthatbearuponwhether l thecertifiedquestionoflawisdispositiveandthemeritsofthe X  questioncertified.Noissuebeyondthescopeofthecertified D! questionwillbeconsidered.0" ` x` x Id.at650. $X"   Inthepresentappeal,theDUIjudgmentformstates, Thecertifiedquestionoflawforthe %0!$ purpose[of]theappealisattachedheretoandincorporatedhereinasexhibitA,anda Statement &"% oftheCertifiedQuestionsofLawPursuanttoRule37(b)oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminal '#& ProceduretobeInsertedintotheJudgmentofConvictionwasattachedtothejudgment.The (#' statement,filedthesamedaythejudgmentwasfiled,provides: Thesequestionsareexpressly )$(  reservedwiththeconsentofthestateandthetrialjudge.TheDefendant,theStateandtheTrial |*%) Judgeareoftheopinionthateachofthecertifiedquestionsare[sic]dispositiveofthecase.The  certifiedquestionsastheyappearinthisstatementareasfollows:   8  8`    WhethertheCourterredindenyingDefendantsMotionfor t [a]PreliminaryHearingfiledonoraboutNovember19,2001.The ` scopeandlimitsofthelegalissuesreservedareasfollows:whether L  the[charges]shouldhavebeendismissed,oranotherpreliminary 8  hearingshouldhavebeenheld,forthefailureoftheaudiorecording $ t atthepreliminaryhearinginviolationofRule5.1(a)oftheTennessee  ` RulesofCriminalProcedure. L ` x` x 8  8`    WhethertheCourterredindenyingDefendantsMotionto $  SuppressfiledonoraboutNovember19,2001,andanyissuesrelated   thereto.Thescopeandlimitsofthelegalissuesreservedareas   follows:(1)whethertheCourterredindenyingthemotioninholding   thatthearrestwas akintoacitizensarrest;and(2)whetherthe   Courterredindenyingthemotioninholdingthatthearrestfitintoan p exceptiontothewarrantlessarreststatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.407 \ 103. XXXXH` x` x #XXX X~#   Weconcludethatthesecondcertifiedquestion,whichistheonlyonepursuedonappeal,is  p notdispositiveofthecase.OfficerCallahansaidthatthedefendantsarrestoccurredafterhehad  \ observedthedefendantwasintoxicated,andthedefendanthadsaidhewasdrinkingrumandcoke H andadmittedhehaddriventhevehicleintothedriveway.Thus,theStatecouldproceed,evenifthe 4 arrestwereillegal,unlesstheadditionaldeterminationweremadethattheevidenceobtainedby   Callahanbeforethearrestmustbesuppressedbecauseoftheillegalarrest.  #  2      ׀However,thetrialcourt   wasnotaskedtodetermineifthedefendantwas seizedwhenfirstapproachedbyOfficerCallahan  orwhatevidencewouldbesuppressedifthearrestwereillegal.Accordingly,evenifweagreethat  thearrestwereillegal,wethenwouldremandthemattertothetrialcourt.Asaresult,weconclude  thatthecertifiedquestionisnotdispositiveand,thus,thisappealisnotproperlybeforethiscourt. l Accordingly,theappealisdismissed.  #l!  NOYXXXX $X" NOY  N N  #XXXX#    `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     ALANE.GLENN,JUDGE