WPCO ׎Vw~j1uq1ndyVng7IPu*6*b*k#"阳7V M:W'L8Ã#R.cXK+"-M4(a=I4w`J6#rڇޞRc#'X=x1}+|Q = %ᦏ}i@]pSxsu1w Gjl,q >pt<'3Pб5PX gA6|3_ xj{=m<ڣJn7EQ "ht/Uxfӂ.`Qp:m7vSrN52ѭg֥`,~6_҂75='t:cM`fYT2kfؼA-`O;Nt%F/xJyRE6 7q&qΊReրG5RvԪotQB3oSѰ!٧N~~U>  0n 0 < 06: D+p A @ <oF@ oUJj 0w 0= 0 0( AQ& "F"h""""" B4 0CQQ""""";"]""N 0U""<"^^"""" 0 0 0 0o 0( 0" 0 B- B  0!#!U Ni$ %$M$($N$$^ $w$4$% m% 0(% 0% 0p& 05' 0( 0( 0f) 0 * 0* 0I+ 0+ 0k, 0-- 0- 0. 0U/ 0/ 00 0/1 01 0K2 02 03 0>y4 04 05 06 0s7 0U8 079 0: 0: 02; 0; 0:< 0_ = 0 l= 0v> 0? B*A D/(B 0WB D/]D 0D 06ZE 0E 0:F 0^F 0<0G 1elG 1uG 72FH 0cxHU6HU*IU N;I;I;I}IIU>L$DLNhMhMhMU>O\  `&Times New Roman'  AOCUSER0AOCUSER .   <:Default ParaXXX<:Footnote Ref64Hyperlink'dxd&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK  WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -  WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -kIA`2WP TypographicSymbols   )..      AXXXAXXXXAX  _B.` hp x (#XBWGCz hx p @X@Exxxx (#(#   (#(#(2$ ?:!..      AXXXAXXXXAX  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2$ ?:!..      AXXXAXXXXAX  (2$ ?:!..      AXXXAXXXXAX  ($C<< c                                     d($      ;q$..      AXXXAXXXXAXXXX  1    _  XXThecocaineandparaphernaliacaseswereoriginallydocketedonappealascaseNo.W200201861CCA  R3CD,buttheconsolidationorderprovidesthatallfuturereferencesshouldbetocaseNo.W200200226CCAR3 o CD.                                        *+ (_2623  ..                                   *G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h      (2q$ ?:!..      AXXXAXXXXAX  XXX  0  )Hairline d  d#|x(r:$..      AXXXAXXXXAX\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularAXmW/ y.:i+00!U*)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *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 #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp 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 ) ` (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  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis<:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7t(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d ds)1dxd<:zTop of For7v(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7(X75+ ` hp x 5  s)2dxd0KS.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  NOPQRSTU 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)~i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  <6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial("  Z6Times New Roman Regular s ?:!..      AXXXAXXXXAX  _B.` hp x (#XB  X    C XX  1  ?  XC TheopinioninRandolphwasreleasedMay3,2002,onlyashorttimeafterthedefendantfiledhisnotices  ofappeal.7oXXX\  `&Times New Roman  "..      AXXXAXXXXAX  _B.` hp x (#XB  ӄ  3  ڄ   D ?:!..      AXXXAXXXXAX  _B.` hp x (#XB  X    C XX  2  ?  XC Hehasnotraisedonappealevidentiarysufficiencyfortheparaphernaliapossessionconviction.xXXX\  `&Times New Roman ?:!..      AXXXAXXXXAX  __         0p x (#X0C XX QhhC INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  Q%ATJACKSONC Ԉ    H.` hp x (#X(#HMarch4,2003Session > XXC C XX STATEOFTENNESSEEv._THADDAEUS_ԀMEDFORDXXC   0  DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforLauderdaleCounty  " No.6962JosephH.Walker,III,Judge   -  XXX k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KEj K Kj2 -  XXX No.W200200226CCAR3CD    1      ׀FiledOctober21,_2003_ _  -  XXX  k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE+ K K+2 -  XXX    BeforeusaretheconsolidatedappealsofThaddaeusMedfordwho,inhisfirsttrial,was  p  convictedofClassEfelonyevadingarrest.Thejuryinthattrialdeadlockedonthecompanion V chargesofcocainepossessionwithintenttodeliveranddrugparaphernaliapossession.Upon < retrial,thedefendantwasconvictedofthetwopossessionoffenses.Heappealsthelegal " sufficiencyofhisevadingarrestandcocainepossessionconvictions,complainsthattestimony  aboutthestreetvalueofcocaineandmoneyfoundinhisautomobilewaserroneouslyadmitted,  andarguesthathisconstitutionalrighttobefreefrom X XXXAXX X Xunreasonablesearchesandseizures X XXX@XX X XԀwas  violated.Basedonourreviewoftherecord,thebriefsoftheparties,andapplicablelaw,we l affirmthedefendantsevadingarrestconviction.Astothecocainepossessionconviction,we R affirmthetrialcourtsevidentiaryrulingsandrejectionofthedefendantsmotiontosuppress, 8 butwe,nevertheless,reversetheconvictionbecausetheevidenceislegallyinsufficient. n   Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisReversedinPartand : AffirmedinPart.      JamesCurwoodWitt,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJosephM.Tipton  andDavidH.Welles,JJ.,joined.    J.ThomasCadlwell,Ripley,Tennessee;andCharlesS.KellySr.,Dyersburg,Tennessee,forthe N"" Appellant,ThaddaeusMedford. 4## PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;JohnH.Bledsoe,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; %P % ElizabethT.Rice,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andTraceyA.Brewer,AssistantDistrictAttorney %6!& General,fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. &"'    ~)$* _ OPINION       AroundmidnightonJanuary9,2000,fourmembersoftheCityofRipley b LauderdaleCountyDrugTaskForcewerepatrollingtheHallsareainanunmarked1993 . ~ ChevroletSuburban.LauderdaleCountySheriff'sDepartmentInvestigatorJohnThompsonwas  J drivingthevehicle;RipleyPoliceOfficerJeffTutoroccupiedthefrontpassengerseat.Ripley    PoliceOfficerGreggLandwasseatedbehindThompson,andOfficerRichardMawyersat   behindOfficerTutor. ^    WhileproceedingonHighway209towardGates,InvestigatorThompsonspotted F ablackImpalatravelinginthesamedirectiononHighway209.InvestigatorThompson  describedtheImpalaas"weaving"or"driftingwithinitsownlane,"butitwasnotspeeding.  Thompson'sTaskForcecompanions,however,variouslydescribedthevehicleasbeingallover Z theroadway,overthecenterline,andweavingontheroad.InvestigatorThompsonactivated &v bluelightsandasiren,whichwerebuiltintotheunmarkedSuburban,andsignaledtheother B vehicletostop.    Thevehicledidnotimmediatelyhalt.ItcontinuedonHighway209,turnedonto V"! BeechBluffCemeteryRoad,andstoppedaftertravelingashortdistance.Allfourofficers "$r# exitedtheSuburban.OfficerTutorapproachedthedriver'ssideofthecar,andOfficerMawyer %>!% wenttothepassenger'sside.Thedriver,thedefendant,complained,"Whyareyouallstopping ' #' me?Ihaven'tdoneanything."OfficerTutorinstructedthedefendanttoturnoffhiscarengine. )$) Thedefendantdidnotcomply;instead,hedroveoffatahighrateofspeedwiththedriver'sside R+&+ dooropen,slingingdirtandmud.Asthedefendantspedoff,OfficersMawyerandTutorhurled -n(-          theirflashlightsatthedefendant'svehicle,breakingthroughthebackwindow.Theofficers  racedbacktotheSuburbantopursuethedefendant. |   OfficerLanddidnotreachtheSuburbanbeforetheotherofficersdroveoffin  d pursuit.Theofficerslostsightofthedefendantafterhetoppedariseintheroad.Approximately  0 onemilepasttheinitialpointofthestop,BeechBluffCemeteryRoadformsa X XXXAXX X XT X XXX@XX X XԀintersection    withanotherroad.Whentheofficersreachedtheintersection,theydiscoveredthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xs |  vehicleofftotheleftinaditchwherethedefendanthadwreckedafterattemptingtoturnatthe L  intersectionandlosingcontrol.Thedefendantwasstandingintheroadwayoutsidehisvehicle. h InvestigatorThompsonandOfficerTutorforcedthedefendantdown,placedhiminhandcuffs, 4 andstoodhimupright.Thedefendantdidnotappearinebriatedorotherwiseimpaired,buthe  wasbleedingfromaninjurytohisforehead. |   Theofficerssearchedthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xsvehicleandretrievedtheirflashlights.They d discovered$278incashscatteredinthefloorboardofthecar,alongwithapagerandcellular 4 telephone.Washingpowderandchildren X XXX=XX X Xstoyswereinsidethecartrunk.Nodrugswereinthe  defendant X XXX=XX X Xsvehicle.InvestigatorThompsonsearchedthedefendantafterhewashandcuffedand !  confiscatedarazorblade,containingapowderresidue,fromthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xsleftfrontpants P#" pocket.Therazorbladewasnotsubmittedfortesting.  %p $   &<"&     Afterthedefendantwasincustodyandaftertheaccidentscenewassecured,the   officersbeganbacktrackingthepaththatthedefendanthadtakenwhenhefledtheinitialstop. | Withinapproximatelyonehour,InvestigatorThompsonandOfficerTutorlocatedaplasticbag, H thecontentsofwhichwerelatertestedanddeterminedtobe8.4gramsofcocaine.No  d identifiablefingerprintswereonthebag.Thebagwasfoundashortdistance,approximately  0 200yards,fromtheinitialstop,inthegrassontheshoulderofBeechBluffCemeteryRoad.      Thedefendantwaschargedwithpossessionof.5gramsormoreofaScheduleII D  controlledsubstancewithintenttodeliver,Tenn.CodeAnn. X XXX'XX X XԀ3917417(a)(4),(c)(1)(Supp. ` 2002),possessionofdrugparaphernalia,id. X XXX'XX X XԀ3917425(1997),andClassEfelonyevading 0 arrest,id. X XXX'XX X XԀ3916603(b)(1),(3)(1997).Thedefendantfiledapretrialmotiontosuppressthe  razorbladeseizedfromhispersonandthecocaineconfiscatedfromtheroadway.Thetrialcourt  deniedthemotionafteranevidentiaryhearing. L   ThedefendantwastriedbyjuryandfoundguiltyofClassEfelonyevadingarrest. 4 Thejury,however,wasunabletoreachaverdictonthepossessioncharges,andthetrialcourt  declaredamistrialonthosecounts.Onretrial,thedefendantwasconvictedofthecocaineand |!  drugparaphernaliacharges.Thetrialcourtimposedacommunitycorrectionssentenceof H#" eighteenmonthsfortheevadingarrestconviction.Forthecocainepossessionconviction,the %d $ trialcourtsentencedthedefendanttoatermofnineyears,andforthedrugparaphernalia &0"& conviction,thetrialcourtimposedasentenceofelevenmonthsand29days.Thesentencesfor (#(     thedrugconvictionswereorderedtobeservedoncommunitycorrections.Thetrialcourt  orderedconcurrentsentencingforalltheconvictions,producinganeffectivesentenceofnine | years. H   Foreachconviction,thedefendanttimelyfiledamotionfornewtrial;those  0 motionsweredenied.He,likewise,timelyfilednoticesofappeal.Thedefendant X XXX=XX X Xscaseshave    beenconsolidatedfordispositionbythiscourt.Onappeal,thedefendantchallengesthe |  sufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence,renewshiscomplaintthatillegallyseizedevidence H  shouldhavebeensuppressed,andobjectstotheadmissibilityofopiniontestimonyaboutthe d streetvalueofcrackcocaineandaboutthemoneyfoundinthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xsvehicle. 0    I.SuppressionIssues  |   Pretrial,thedefendantfiledamotiontosuppress X XXXAXX X Xanyandall X XXX@XX X XԀevidenceseizedin d connectionwithhisactivitiesonJanuary9,2000.Asgrounds,thedefendantalleged:(1)the 4 lawenforcementofficerslackedprobablecausetostophisvehicle;(2)theofficerslacked  probablecausetosearchthedefendant,hisvehicle,or X XXXAXX X Xtheareainwhichhewastraveling X XXX@XX X X;(3) |!  noexigentcircumstancesjustifiedthewarrantlesssearches;and(4)theevidenceseizedwasnot L#" inplainview.Thetrialcourtconductedanevidentiaryhearinganddeniedthemotion.Thetrial %h $ courtruledthatthecocainefoundonthesideofBeechBluffCemeteryRoadhadbeen &4"& abandonedand,therefore,shouldnotbesuppressed.Asfortherazorblade,thetrialcourtruled ($(     thatthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xserraticdrivingjustifiedtheinvestigatorystop,thatwhenthedefendantfled  afterstopping,theofficerswerejustifiedinpursuingandarrestingthedefendant,andthatthe  razorbladeinthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xspantspocketwasproperlyseizedincidenttohisarrest. L   Wereviewthetrialcourt X XXX=XX X Xsfindingsandrulingspursuanttoafamiliarstandard.  8 Onappeal, X XXXAXX X Xatrialcourt X XXX=XX X Xsfindingsoffactinasuppressionhearingwillbeupheldunlessthe    evidencepreponderatesotherwise. X XXX@XX X XԀStatev.Odom,928S.W.2d18,23(Tenn.1996),quotedin   Statev.Flake,88S.W.3d540,561(Tenn.2002)(OpinionDenyingPetitionforRehearing). X  Credibilityquestions,evaluationsoftheweightoftheevidence,andevidentiarydisagreements $t fallwithinthetrialcourt X XXX=XX X Xsprovinceasthetrieroffact.SeeStatev.England,19S.W.3d762, @ 766(Tenn.2000);Odom,928S.W.2dat23.Thepartyprevailinginthetrialcourt X XXXAXX X Xisentitledto  thestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceadducedatthesuppressionhearingaswellasall  reasonableandlegitimateinferencesthatmaybedrawnfromthatevidence. X XXX@XX X XԀOdom,928S.W.2d \ at23;seeStatev.Binette,33S.W.3d215,217(Tenn.2000).Moreover,thereviewingcourtis ,| notlimitedtowhattranspiredatthesuppressionhearing;rather,itmayconsidertheentire H record,includingtrialtranscripts.Statev.Henning,975S.W.2d290,299(Tenn.1998).We  hastentoaddthatthetrialcourt X XXX=XX X Xsconclusionsoflaw,however,arerevieweddenovowithouta !  presumptionofcorrectness.SeeStatev.Yeargan,958S.W.2d626,629(Tenn.1997). `#"    A.AbandonedNarcotics  &H"&    ($(     Thereisnofactualdisputeinthiscasethatthecocainethatformedthebasisfor  thechargeofpossessionwithintenttodeliverwasdiscoveredandseizedfromthegrassy | shoulderofBeechBluffCemeteryRoad,approximately200yardsfromthepointwherethe H defendantinitiallystoppedhisvehicle.Noneoftheofficerssawthedefendantdivesthimselfof  d thecocaineas/afterhedroveawayathighspeed,andthedefendantneveradmittedthatthe  0 cocainehadbeenhis.      RelyingonStatev.Holbrooks,983S.W.2d697(Tenn.Crim.App.1998),Statev. D  Baker,966S.W.2d429(Tenn.Crim.App.1997),andCaliforniav.HodariD.,499U.S.621, ` 111S.Ct.1547(1991),thetrialcourtdeterminedthatatthetimethedefendantcastthecocaine , outofhiscarwindow,hewasnolonger X XXXAXX X Xseized X XXX@XX X X;therefore,thecocainefoundontheroadsideby  theofficerscouldnotbetheproductofany X XXXAXX X Xillegalseizure. X XXX@XX X XԀThecocainehadbeenabandoned, x thetrialcourtconcluded,andwaslawfullyrecoveredbythepolice. H   Wereviewtheconstitutionalandlegalstandardsappliedbythetrialcourtpurely 0 denovo.Asweshallexplain,thatreviewpersuadesusthat,althoughsuppressionisnot  required,thetrialcourtappliedanerroneouslegalstandard.SeeStatev.Daniel,12S.W.3d420, x!  42324(Tenn.2000)(trialcourt X XXX=XX X Xsconclusionthatseizuredidnotoccurisconclusionoflawand D#" denovoreviewapplies). %d $   &0"&     Atleastthreeinterrelatedconceptsinfluencehowthissuppressionissueis   analyzedandresolved.Theyare:(i)police/citizenencounters;(ii)theplainviewdoctrine;and | (iii)abandonedproperty H    (i)Police/CitizenEncounters   0   TheFourthAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionprotectsthe X XXXAXX X Xrightof x  thepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,houses,papers,andeffects,againstunreasonable H  searchesandseizures X XXX@XX X XԀandcommandsthat X XXXAXX X Xnowarrantsshallissuebutuponprobablecause, d supportedbyoathoraffirmation,andparticularlydescribingtheplacetobesearched,andthe 4 personsorthingstobeseized. X XXX@XX X XԀU.S.Const.amend.IV.TheTennesseeConstitutionsimilarly  provides,inrelevantpart,that X XXXAXX X Xthepeopleshallbesecureintheirpersons,houses,papersand  possessions,fromunreasonablesearchesandseizures. X XXX@XX X XԀTenn.Const.art.1 X XXX'XX X XԀ7.These P constitutionalprotections X XXXAXX X Xareimplicatedonlywhenapoliceofficer X XXX=XX X Xsinteractionwithacitizen  p impermissiblyintrudesupontheprivacyorpersonalsecurityofthecitizen. X XXX@XX X XԀDaniel,12S.W.3d @ at424.Statedanotherway,theseconstitutionalsafeguardsdonotattachtolawenforcement  activitiesunlesstheactivitiesqualifyasa X XXXAXX X Xsearch X XXX@XX X XԀor X XXXAXX X Xseizure X XXX@XX X XԀwithinthemeaningoftheFourth !  Amendmentand/orArticle1,Section7oftheTennesseeConstitution.Statev.Ross,49S.W.3d \#" 833,839(Tenn.2001);seealsoDaniel,12S.W.3dat425( X XXXAXX X X[C]ourtshaverepeatedlyheldthat (%x $  evenwhenpolicehavenobasisforsuspectingthatanindividualhascommittedorisaboutto &H"&      commitacrime,theofficermayapproachanindividualinapublicplaceandaskquestions  withoutimplicatingconstitutionalprotections. X XXX@XX X X). |   l<`  InStatev.Randolph,74S.W.3d330(Tenn.2002),     1      WX   oursupremecourt,asa  h matterofinterpretingArticle1,Section7oftheTennesseeConstitution,partedcompanywith  4 thefederalconstitutionalviewexpressedinHodariD.thata X XXXAXX X Xseizure X XXX@XX X XԀoccursonlywhenan   officerappliesphysicalforcetodetainanindividualorwhentheindividualyieldstoashowof   authority.Randolph,74S.W.3dat337.IncontrasttotheHodariD.Court X XXX=XX X Xsdefinitionofa L  seizure,oursupremecourtruledthatanofficer X XXX=XX X Xsshowofauthoritycanconstitutea X XXXAXX X Xseizure X XXX@XX X X l eventhoughasuspectisnotactuallyrestrainedorevenifthesuspectfailstosubmittothe < officialshowofauthority.Randolph,74S.W.3dat33538.   `  E.` ` hp x (#X(#EThepertinentfactsinRandolphwerethat15minutesafterOfficer P Harringtonreceivednotificationofapossibleburglaryinprogress l atDoc X XXX=XX X Xs,hesawthedefendantridingasmall,chromesilverBMX 8 stylebicycleinhisdirectionapproximatelyfourblocksawayfrom  Doc X XXX=XX X Xs.OfficerHarringtonrequestedadescriptionandwastold !  onlythatthesuspectwasawhitemale.Basedmerelyonahunch, T#"  OfficerHarringtondecided  %p $ tostopthedefendant,activatedhisbluelightstoidentifyhimself   asanofficer,andorderedthedefendanttostop.Whenthe | defendantignoredtheorderandkeptgoing,OfficerHarrington H turnedhispolicecararoundandpursuedthedefendantfor  d approximatelyoneandonehalfblocks.  0  E.` hp x (#` X(#E` Id.at33738.TheofficereventuallycaughtupwithRandolph,butbeforehewasphysically x  apprehended,hetossedashotgunandtwoboxesofammunitionintothegrassandfledonfoot. D  Id.at333. X XXXAXX X XWehold, X XXX@XX X XԀthesupremecourtwrote, X XXXAXX X Xthatunderthecircumstancesofthiscasethe ` defendantwasseizedwhentheofficeractivatedthebluelightsonhispatrolcar,orderedthe 0 defendanttostop,andpursuedhimforseveralblocks. X XXX@XX X XԀId.at338.Thecourtconcluded,   X XXXAXX X XBecausetheofficerlackedreasonablesuspicionorprobablecausetoeffectsuchaseizure,the | evidenceseizedfromthedefendantwasproperlysuppressedbythetrialcourt. X XXX@XX X XԀId. L  PursuanttoRandolph,wecanreachnoconclusionotherthanthedefendantinthis 8 casewasseizedwhenthedrugtaskforceofficersactivatedthebluelightsontheirSuburban,  orderedthedefendanttoturnoffhiscarengine,andthenpursuedhimwhenherefusedtosubmit !  anddroveoffinstead.Theconstitutionalityofthatseizure,therefore,becomesanissuebecause L#" thecocainerepresentsthefruitsofthatseizure. %h $   &4"&      Onewellrecognizedexceptiontothewarrantrequirementexistswhenapolice   officermakesaninvestigatorystopbaseduponreasonablesuspicion,supportedbyspecificand | articulablefacts,thatacriminaloffensehasbeenorisabouttobecommitted.SeeTerryv.Ohio, H 392U.S.1,20-21,88S.Ct.1868,1880(1968);Statev.Bridges,963S.W.2d487,492(Tenn.  d 1997);Statev.Hord,106S.W.3d68,71(Tenn.Crim.App.2002),perm.app.denied(Tenn.  0 2003).Probablecauseisnotrequiredforsuchan X XXXAXX X Xinvestigatorystop. X XXX@XX X XԀTerry,392U.S.at21,88    S.Ct.at1880.Theleadingcase,Delawarev.Prouse,440U.S.648,663,99S.Ct.1391,1401 |  (1979),establishedthatgenerallythepoliceareentitledtostopacarbrieflyforinvestigative H  purposesiftheyhaveareasonablesuspicion,baseduponspecificandarticulablefacts,thatan d offenseisbeingorisabouttobecommitted.Areviewingcourtthenmusttakeintoaccountthe 0 totalityofcircumstanceswhenanalyzingwhetheranofficer'ssuspicionis X XXXAXX X Xreasonable X XXX@XX X XԀand  supportedbyspecificandarticulablefacts.Yeargan,958S.W.2dat632.Circumstances | relevanttothatdeterminationinclude,butarenotlimitedto,theofficer X XXX=XX X Xs X XXXAXX X Xpersonalobjective H observations X XXX@XX X XԀand X XXXAXX X Xtherationalinferencesanddeductionsthatatrainedofficermaydrawfrom h thefactsandcircumstancesknowntohim--inferencesanddeductionsthatmightwelleludean 8 untrainedperson. X XXX@XX X XԀStatev.Keith,978S.W.2d861,867(Tenn.1998).    "Beforeusinthesecasesaretranscriptsofthesuppressionhearingandbothtrials. P#" Throughoutthevariousproceedings,theofficerstestifiedconsistentlyabouttheirobservations %l $ ofthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xsdrivingandwhatpromptedtheinitiationofatrafficstop.OfficerMawyer &8"& testifiedatthesuppressionhearingthatthedefendant X XXXAXX X Xwasdrivingoverthecenterlinedownthe ($( "  " "  centeroftheroad,basicallyweavingbackandforth. X XXX@XX X XԀAtbothtrials,hesaidthatheobservedthe  defendantdrivingoverthecenterline.OfficerTutor,likewise,testifiedatthesuppression  hearingthatheobservedthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xsvehicleweavingacrossthecenteroftheroad;that L testimonydidnotchangeateithertrial.Atthesuppressionhearing,OfficerLandrelatedthat  l whenhefirstnoticedthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xscaritwas X XXXAXX X Xsomewhatonthewrongsideoftheroad, X XXX@XX X XԀacross  8 thecenterline.OfficerLandwasnotawitnessateithertrial.Finally,InvestigatorThompson    testifiedatthesuppressionhearingandbothtrialsthatwhenhefirstobservedthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xs   vehicle,itwas X XXXAXX X Xweaving X XXX@XX X XԀand X XXXAXX X Xdriftingwithinitsownlane. X XXX@XX X XԀNoneoftheofficersclaimedthat T  thedefendantwasdrivingatanexcessivespeed.Theyinitiatedthestoptoinvestigatethe $t defendant X XXX=XX X Xssobriety. @   #Thedefendantdidnottestifyatthesuppressionhearingbutdidtestifyatboth  trials.Heclaimedthathehadnotbeendrinkingthatnight,thathehadbeenvisitingwitha X friend,andthathewassimplyreturninghometohiswifeandchildren.Thedefendanttestified $t thathenoticedavehicletravelingclosebehindhim,butheflatlydeniedseeinganybluelights. @ Hesaidthathewas X XXXAXX X Xforced X XXX@XX X XԀtostopwhentheothervehicletriedtocuthimofftheroad.The   defendanttestifiedthathewasfrightened,thathedidnotknow X XXXAXX X Xwhattheheckwasgoingon, X XXX@XX X X !  thathedidnotknowthatthemenintheothervehiclewerelawenforcementofficers,andthathe \#" droveoff X XXXAXX X Xtogetsomeplacesafe. X XXX@XX X XԀIntheprocessofspeedingoff,thedefendantsaidthathe (%x $ acceleratedtoofastwhilemakingaturnand X XXXAXX X Xfishtailedandendeduphittingtheditch. X XXX@XX X XԀ &H"&   ($( #  # #  Accordingtothedefendant,whenthepolicearrived,theythrewhimtothe  ground,handcuffedhim,andhithimonthesideofthehead.Thedefendanttestifiedthatoneof | theofficerstookmoneyoutofthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xspantspocket.Hedeniedthathehadbeen H drinkingthatnight,deniedhavinganykindofdrugswithhim,anddeniedthrowinganythingout  h hisvehicle.Hevariouslydeniedorcouldnotrecallhavingarazorbladeinhispantspocket.  4   InitswrittenOrderdenyingthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xssuppressionmotion,thetrialcourt |  accreditedtheofficers X XXX=XX X XԀtestimonythattheyobservedthedefendantweavingoutofhislaneand L  overthecenter.Basedonthiserraticdriving,thetrialcourtconcludedthattheofficershad l reasonablesuspicionsufficienttojustifyaninvestigatorystop.Thedefendantarguesonappeal 8 thattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourt X XXX=XX X Xsfindings;however,hereliesentirelyon  InvestigatorThompson X XXX=XX X Xstestimonythatthedefendantwasweavinginhisownlane,whichthe  defendantinsistsdidnotjustifythestop. T   $InvestigatorThompson X XXX=XX X Xsobservationsnotwithstanding,wearenotconvincedthat < theevidencepreponderatesagainstthelowercourt X XXX=XX X Xsfindingsthatthedefendantwasdriving   erraticallyandwasweavinganddriftingoutofhislaneandoverthecenteroftheroadway.The !  otherofficerssotestified,andasthefactfinder,thetrialcourtwasinthesuperiorpositionto X#" evaluatetherelativemeritsofthetestimonypresented.Theobservationsandtestimony $%t $ distinguishthiscasefromthoseinvolvingmerelyamomentarylapseinamotorist X XXX=XX X Xsdriving, &@"& whichdoesnotsupportreasonablesuspicionforaninvestigatorystop.CompareStatev.Binette, ($( $ $ $  33S.W.3d215,218(Tenn.2000)(defendant X XXX=XX X Xsallegedweavingwasentirelywithinhislane,was  notexaggerated,andtouchedcenterlineonlytwice),andStatev.AnnElizabethMartin,No.  E199901361CCAR3CD,slipop.at67(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,Sept.8,2000) L (reasonablesuspiciondidnotsupportstop;notunusualforvehicletoenterturnlaneandthen  h returntotravellanewithoutmakingaturn),withStatev.JoeCharlesDegrafenreid,No.W2002  4 00681CCAR3CD,slipop.at45(Tenn.Crim.App.,Jackson,Apr.23,2003)(deputy X XXX=XX X Xs   testimonydescribedtypeofpronounced,erraticdrivingthatmayconstitutereasonablesuspicion   fortrafficstop),Statev.GaryS.Greve,No.E200200999CCAR3CD,slipop.at34(Tenn. L  Crim.App.,Knoxville,Mar.27,2003)(investigatorystopupheldwhendefendant X XXX=XX X Xsvehicle h observedweavinginandoutofitslaneoftravelthreetimesinashorttimespan),andStatev. 8 JeromeD.Manning,No.M200103128CCAR3CD(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,Dec.20,  2002)(reasonablesuspicionforstopwhendefendant X XXX=XX X Xsvehiclecrossedcenterlinetwiceandonto  rightgravelshoulderofroad),perm.app.denied(Tenn.2003). P   Consequently,weareoftheopinionthatalthoughthedefendantwas X XXXAXX X Xseized, X XXX@XX X XԀin 8 theconstitutionalsensearticulatedinRandolph,theseizurewasapermissibleinvestigatorystop  andthereforewassubjecttothewarrantrequirement.Thus,itwasnotunreasonableorillegal. !  Therebeingnoillegalseizure,therewereno X XXXAXX X Xfruits X XXX@XX X XԀtobesuppressed. P#"    (ii)PlainView  &<"&    ($(  %Perhapsthemoststraightforwardroutetoadmissibilityofthecocaineisviathe  plainviewexceptiontothewarrantrequirement.Theplainviewexceptionisusuallyinvokedin | conjunctionwithpropertyinopenviewthatissituatedonprivatepremisesorinsideautomobiles H  X XXXAXX X Xtowhichaccessisnototherwiseavailablefortheseizingofficer. X XXX@XX X XԀG.M.LeasingCorp.v.  d UnitedStates,429U.S.338,354,97S.Ct.619,629(1977).Inthosesituations,theplainview  4 exceptionrequiresproofthat(a)theofficerdidnotviolateconstitutionalmandatesinarrivingat   thelocationfromwhichtheevidencecouldplainlybeseen;(b)theofficerhadalawfulrightof |  accesstotheevidence;and(c)theincriminatingnatureoftheobjectwasimmediatelyapparent. H  Minnesotav.Dickerson,508U.S.366,375,113S.Ct.2130,213637(1993);Hortonv. d California,496U.S.128,136-141,110S.Ct.2301,2308-2310(1990).Inthemajorityofcases, 0 thepivotalissueiswhethertheofficerwaslawfullyinapositiontoviewtheobject.    Thiscase,however,presentsthepurestformof X XXXAXX X Xplainview. X XXX@XX X XԀAsrecognizedby D theSupremeCourtinPaytonv.NewYork,445U.S.573,58687,100S.Ct.1371,138081 d (1980), 0    ?(` ` hp xX(#?[O]bjectssuchasweaponsorcontrabandfoundinapublicplace x!  maybeseizedbythepolicewithoutawarrant.Theseizureof D#" propertyinplainviewinvolvesnoinvasionofprivacyandis %` $ presumptivelyreasonable,assumingthatthereisprobablecauseto &,"& associatethepropertywithcriminalactivity. (#( % % %   E.` hp x (#` XxE &Inouropinion,itisobviousfromtherecordinthiscasethatBeechBluff | CemeteryRoadisapublicplacefreelyaccessibletocitizensandlawenforcementofficersalike H andthatthecocaineinthiscasewasfoundonthesideofthatpublicroad.Cocaineiscontraband  d thatgeneratesprobablecausetoassociateitwithcriminalactivity.Seizingthecocaineinthis  0 case,whichwasinplainviewinapublicplace,violatednoconstitutionalimperative.       (iii)AbandonedProperty  D    Initsorderdenyingsuppression,thetrialcourtspokeofthebagofcocaineas , havingbeen X XXXAXX X Xabandoned X XXX@XX X XԀbythedefendant,althoughtherewasnodirectevidencethathehad  discardedthecocainelaterfoundonBeechBluffCemeteryRoad.Thedifferencebetween x seizingcontrabandfoundinapublicplaceandseizingevidencethatadefendanthas D  X XXXAXX X Xabandoned X XXX@XX X XԀcanbeconstitutionallysignificant.Forthatreason,wenowturnourattentiontothe ` admissibilityofthecocaineunderthetheorythatithadbeenabandonedbythedefendant. 0   Thetrialcourtruledthatthecocainewasadmissiblesimplybecausethe x!  defendantlostorrelinquishedanypossessoryorownershipinterestinthebagwhenhethrewit D#" outofthecarwindow.Thisview,however,isincorrect.Adefendant X XXX=XX X Xspropertyinterestdoes %` $ notdeterminethereachoftheconstitutionalprotectionsagainstunreasonablesearchesand &0"& seizures. (#( & & &   'Theideathatpropertyinterestscontroltherightofofficialstosearchandseize | hasbeendiscredited.SeeOliverv.UnitedStates,466U.S.170,183,104S.Ct.1735,1743 H (1984);Katzv.UnitedStates,389U.S.347,353,88S.Ct.507,512(1967).TheFourth  d Amendmentprotectspeopleandprivacy,notplacesandproperty.SeeKatz,389U.S.at351,88  0 S.Ct.at511.Consequently, X XXXAXX X Xabandonment, X XXX@XX X XԀasunderstoodintheconstitutionalcontextof    unreasonablesearchesandseizures, X XXXAXX X Xisnotmeantinthestrictpropertyrightsense,butrests |  insteadonwhetherthepersonsorelinquishedhisinterestinthepropertythathenolonger L  retainedareasonableexpectationofprivacyinitatthetimeofthesearch. X XXX@XX X XԀUnitedStatesv. h Veatch,674F.2d1217,122021(9thCir.1981),quotedwithapprovalinRoss,49S.W.3dat842 8 n.8.    (Atfirstblush,itmightseemfrivoloustodiscussareasonableexpectationof L privacyinabagtossedoutofavehicleontoapublicroadway.Thediscussion,however,isno h morefrivolousthanthelengthyanalysisbytheSupremeCourtinCaliforniav.Greenwood,486 4 U.S.35,108S.Ct.1625(1988),whenitconsideredwhetherthedefendantshadareasonable  expectationofprivacyinplasticgarbagebagsleftatthecurboutsidetheirresidence,orthe |!  detailedexaminationbythecourtinStatev.Bell,832S.W.2d583(Tenn.Crim.App.1991), H#" whetherthedefendanthadareasonableexpectationofprivacyinagarbagedumpsterlocatedin %d $ theparkinglotofabusiness.Theanalysisderivesfromthenowclassicprinciple: X XXXAXX X XWhata &0"& personknowinglyexposestothepublic,eveninhisownhomeoroffice,isnotasubjectof ($(  '( ' (' (  FourthAmendmentprotection....Butwhatheseekstopreserveasprivate,eveninanarea  accessibletothepublic,maybeconstitutionallyprotected. X XXX@XX X XԀKatz,389U.S.at351,88S.Ct.at | 511(emphasisadded)(citationomitted);seeStatev.Prier,725S.W.2d667,671(Tenn.1987) L (TennesseeaffordsnogreaterprotectionthanKatz X XXX=XX X Xsprincipleofwhatapersonknowingly  h exposestothepublic).Publicaccessibility,inotherwords,doesnotinvariablydefeata  8 reasonableexpectationofprivacy.CompareBolenv.State,544S.W.2d918,920(Tenn.Crim.    App.1976)(insufficientrecordto X XXXAXX X Xjustifytreatingthetrashdumpsterasthereceptacleof   abandonedpropertythenbeyondthescopeofanyexpectationofprivacy X XXX@XX X X),withBell,832 P  S.W.2dat591(garbagedumpsterlocatedonparkinglotofbusiness;doorstodumpsterwere  p open;manystrangersvisitedestablishmentdailyandhadeasyaccesstodumpster). <   InStatev.BrendaHill,No.274(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,Aug.7,1990),the  courtidentifiedthe X XXXAXX X Xcriticalinquiry X XXX@XX X XԀasbeingwhethertheperson X XXXAXX X Xhad X XXX>XX X Xvoluntarilydiscarded,left P behind,orotherwiserelinquishedhisinterestinthepropertyinquestionsothathecouldno  p longerretainareasonableexpectationofprivacywithregardtoitatthetimeofthesearch. X XXX=@XX X XԀId., < slipop.at7(quotingUnitedStatesv.Colbert,474F.2d174,176(5thCir.1973)).Oneaspectof   voluntarinesspointedoutinHillrelatesto X XXXAXX X Xtheconductoftheofficerspriortothediscarding. X XXX@XX X XԀ !  Id.,slipop.at4.Thatis, X XXXAXX X X[a]defendant X XXX=XX X Xsabandonmentofevidencemustbetrulyvoluntaryand X#" notbetheresultofpolicemisconduct. X XXX@XX X XԀId. (%x $   &H"&  )Assuming,asthetrialcourtdid,thatthedefendantwasthepersonwhodiscarded   thebagalongBeechBluffCemeteryRoad,thedefendant X XXX=XX X Xsintenttoabandonthecontrabandis | obvious.Moreover,aswepreviouslyexplained,thepoliceactionswereclearlyproper,justified, L andconstitutional.Theofficershadreasonablesuspiciontoinitiateaninvestigatorystop.When  h thedefendantmomentarilystoppedbutthenfailedtoyield,theofficershadprobablecauseto  4 pursuethefleeingvehicleandarrestthedefendantforevadingarrest,asultimatelyoccurredin   thiscase.Whenhevoluntarilyabandonedthecocainebytossingitontoapublicthoroughfare, |  thedefendantrelinquishedanylegitimateexpectationofprivacyinthecontentsofthebag.For H  thisadditionalreason,thecocainewasproperlyadmitted. d     B.SearchIncidenttoArrest  x  Theadmissibilityoftherazorbladeseizedfromthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xspantspocketneed D notdetainuslong.Neitherthedefendantnorthestatemakesspecificmentionofthisitemof d evidence.Thetrialcourtruledthattherazorbladewasproperlyseizedincidenttothe 0 defendant X XXX=XX X Xsarrest.Weagree.    Oneofthewellrecognizedexceptionstothewarrantrequirementisasearch H#" incidenttoalawfulcustodialarrest.See,e.g.,Statev.Walker,12S.W.3d460,467(Tenn. %d $ 2000). Thekeyisthelawfulnessoftheunderlyingarrest.Pursuanttotheexception,whenan &0"& officerplacesacitizenunderlawfulcustodialarrest,thatofficerispermittedtomakea (#( ) ) )  warrantlesssearchincidenttothecustodialarrest.SeeUnitedStatesv.Robinson,414U.S.218,  235,94S.Ct.467,477(1973);Walker,12S.W.3dat467;Statev.Crutcher,989S.W.2d295, | 300(Tenn.1999).If,however,anindividualisunlawfullyplacedundercustodialarrest,a H subsequentsearchisalsounlawful,andevidenceseizedasaresultoftheunlawfulsearchis  d suppressedandnotadmissibleintheprosecution'scaseinchief.SeeStatev.Clark,844S.W.2d  0 597,600(Tenn.1992).     x  ,Aswehaveexplained,basedonthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xserraticdriving,theofficershad D  reasonablesuspiciontoinitiateatrafficstop.Then,whenthedefendantmomentarilystopped d butrefusedtoturnoffhiscarengineandfled,theofficershadprobablecausetoarrestthe 0 defendantforClassEfelonyevadingarrest,whichproscribesasunlawful X XXXAXX X Xforanyperson,while  operatingamotorvehicleonanystreet,road,alleyorhighwayinthisstate,tointentionallyflee | orattempttoeludeanylawenforcementofficer,afterhavingreceivedanysignalfromsuch H officertobringthevehicletoastop. X XXX@XX X XԀTenn.CodeAnn. X XXX'XX X XԀ3916603(b)(1),(3)(1997).When d theofficerseventuallyapprehendedthedefendant,theytookhimintocustody,handcuffedhim, 4 andthensearchedhisclothing.Atthatpoint,therazorbladewasdiscoveredinthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xs  pantspocket.Inouropinion,thisisaclassicexampleofapermissiblewarrantlesssearch !  incidenttoarrest. L#"    II.OpinionTestimony  &4"&    ($( , , ,  Next,thedefendantcomplainsaboutthetrialcourt X XXX=XX X Xsadmissionoftestimonyby  OfficersMawyerandTutorandbyInvestigatorThompsonconcerningthestreetvalueof  cocaine,theamountofcocainerecovered,andthemoneyinthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xsvehicleasindicative L ofdrugdealing.  l   Theadmissibility,relevancy,andcompetencyofevidencearemattersentrustedto    thesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt.Withthatprincipleinmind,wereviewthetrialcourt X XXX=XX X Xs   evidentiaryrulingsforabuseofdiscretion.SeeStatev.DuBose,953S.W.2d649,652(Tenn. P  1997);Statev.Gray,960S.W.2d598,606(Tenn.Crim.App.1997). l  8 -Testimonyabouttheamountofcocaineseizedandtheamountofmoneyfoundin  thedefendant X XXX=XX X Xsvehiclewas X XXXAXX X Xfactual X XXX@XX X XԀinnatureandclearlynotobjectionable.Testimonyrelative  tothe X XXXAXX X Xstreetvalue X XXX@XX X XԀofillegalsubstancesiscommonplaceindrugprosecutions.See,e.g.,Statev. P Blackmon,78S.W.3d322,328n.2(Tenn.Crim.App.2001)( X XXXAXX X XTestimonyestablishedthatthe  p streetvalueofonekilo(2.2pounds)ofcocaineintheNashvilleareain1993wasbetween @ $23,000and$28,500and X XXX>XX X Xashighas$30,000, X XXX=XX X XԀdependinguponavailability. X XXX@XX X X);Statev.Thomas,   818S.W.2d350,354(Tenn.Crim.App.1991)(cocaineseizedbyofficershadestimatedstreet !  valueofbetween$100,000and$120,000);Statev.Jones,802S.W.2d221,222(Tenn.Crim. X#" App.1990)(smallrocksofcocainehadanestimatedstreetvalueof$20each). $%t $   &@"& - - -  Moreover,inStatev.Matthews,805S.W.2d776,782(Tenn.Crim.App.1990),   thecourtheldthatthestreetvalueofcocaineisadmissibletoestablishtheintentoftheaccused. | SeegenerallyTenn.CodeAnn. X XXX'XX X XԀ3917417(a)(4)(Supp.2002)( X XXXAXX X XItisanoffenseforadefendant H toknowingly:...(4)Possessacontrolledsubstancewithintenttomanufacture,deliverorsell  h suchcontrolledsubstance. X XXX@XX X X).Proofofmonetaryvalueisrelevanttoadefendant X XXX=XX X Xsintentand  4 whetherhepossessedthecontrolledsubstancewithintenttodistributeitorwithintenttouseit    personally.Matthews,805S.W.2dat782.     .Asforthesignificanceoftheamountofcocaineconfiscatedinthiscaseandof h themoney,insmalldenominations,foundinthecar,ajuryinthisstate,bystatute,may X XXXAXX X Xinfer[] 4 fromtheamountofacontrolledsubstanceorsubstancespossessedbyanoffender,alongwith  otherrelevantfactssurroundingthearrest,thatthecontrolledsubstanceorsubstanceswere  possessedwiththepurposeofsellingorotherwisedispensing. X XXX@XX X XԀTenn.CodeAnn. X XXX'XX X XԀ3917419 L (Supp.2002)(emphasisadded).Relevantfactshavebeenfound,forinstance,toincludemoney l insmalldenominations,beepers,loadedguns,thepackagingofdrugsinseparateplasticbags, 8 andCrownRoyalbagsusedtohidedrugs.SeeStatev.TimothyTyroneSanders,No.M2001  02128CCAR3CD,slipop.at5(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,July5,2002),perm.app.denied !  (Tenn.2002);Statev.ReginaldT.Smith,No.02C019204,slipop.at34(Tenn.Crim.App., L#" Jackson,Feb.17,1993).Thetestimonyofofficersaboutdifferencesbetweenusersandsellers, %h $ baseduponexperiencesinthefield,alsohasbeenfoundappropriate.SeeStatev.Timothy &4"& Murrell,No.W200102279CCAR3CD,slipop.at59(Tenn.Crim.App.,Jackson,July2, ($( . . .  2003)(collectinganddiscussingcasesandarticlesupholdingadmissibilityofpolicetestimony  aboutthehabitsofdrugdealersifwitnessisqualifiedthroughexperienceorothermeans). |   Thedefendant,wehold,hasnotdemonstratedthatthetrialcourtabusedits  d discretioninadmittingthetestimony.  0    III.EvidenceSufficiency x     Last,thedefendantconteststhelegalsufficiencyoftheevidencetosupporthis ` evadingarrestandcocainepossessionconvictions.     2     .   ,   0Ajury X XXX=XX X Xsdeterminationofguiltbeyondareasonabledoubtremovesthe t presumptionofinnocencewithwhichadefendantiscloakedandreplacesitwithoneofguilt D whereby,onappeal,aconvicteddefendanthastheburdenofdemonstratingthattheevidenceis ` legallyinsufficient.Statev.Tuggle,639S.W.2d913,914(Tenn.1982).Inreviewingthe , sufficiencyoftheevidence,wedonotreweighorreevaluatetheevidence.Statev.Cabbage,  571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978).Norisitourdutytorevisitwitnesscredibilityissueson t!  appeal;thattaskisproperlyassignedtothetrieroffact.Statev.Holder,15S.W.3d905,911 @#" (Tenn.Crim.App.1999).Thebarthatthedefendantmustclearonappealisformidable.The  %\ $ defendantmustestablishthattheevidenceintroducedattrialwassodeficientthatnoreasonable &("& 0 0 0  trieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsoftheoffensebeyondareasonabledoubt.  Tenn.R.App.P.13(e);Jacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,319,99S.Ct.2781,2789(1979). | Furthermore,aspartofourreview,thestateisentitledtothestrongestlegitimateviewofthe H evidenceandallreasonableinferenceswhichmaybedrawntherefrom.Statev.Harris,839  d S.W.2d54,75(Tenn.1992).Theseprinciplesapplytofindingsofguiltbasedupondirect  0 evidence,circumstantialevidence,oracombinationofbothdirectandcircumstantialevidence.    Matthews,805S.W.2dat779. x     A.EvadingArrest `    ClassEfelonyevadingarrestisdefinedasfollows:    X1  ?(` ` hp xX(#?(b)(1)  Itisunlawfulforanyperson,whileoperatinga @ motorvehicleonanystreet,road,alleyorhighwayinthisstate,to  \ intentionallyfleeorattempttoeludeanylawenforcementofficer, ( afterhavingreceivedanysignalfromsuchofficertobringthe  vehicletoastop. p!   X X(2)  Itisadefensetoprosecutionunderthissubsection %X $ thattheattemptedarrestwasunlawful. &$"&  X (#( 1 1 1   E.` hp x (#` XxETenn.CodeAnn. X XXX'XX X XԀ3916603(b)(1),(2)(1997).   Thedefendant X XXX=XX X Xssufficiencyargumentisnotentirelycleartous,butheappearsto L beclaimingthathehadnotbeenarrestedatthetimehedroveoffand/orthathedidnotknow  l thatthemenpursuinghimwerelawenforcementofficers.HedirectsourattentiontoStatev.  8 Holbrooks,983S.W.2d697(Tenn.Crim.App.1998),asauthoritythathisconvictioncannot    stand.Holbrooks,however,istotallydistinguishableontwogrounds.First,thecourtreliedon   HodariD.toreachtheconclusionthatthefootchaseofdefendantHolbrookswasnotaseizure, L  andtherefore,theplasticbagofrockcocainefoundbythepursuingofficerwasnotthefruitof h anillegalarrestorseizure.Holbrooks,983S.W.2dat700.Aswepreviouslydiscussed, 4 RandolphcontrolstheconstitutionalanalysispursuanttoArticle1,Section7oftheTennessee  Constitutionandcompelsadifferentconclusion.Randolph,74S.W.3dat33538. |   2Second,thedefendantinHolbrookswaschargedwithandconvictedofamodeof d evadingarrestthatisdifferentfromthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xsconvictioninthiscase.InHolbrooks,the 0 defendantwaschargedwithClassAmisdemeanorevadingarrest,definedinCodesection39  16603(a)(1)andwhichprovidesinpertinentpart, |!    X  ?(` ` hp xX(#?(a)(1)  Exceptasprovidedinsubsection(b),itisunlawful %d $  foranypersontointentionallyfleebyanymeansoflocomotion &0"& 2 2 2  fromanyonethepersonknowstobealawenforcementofficerif  theperson: |  X X(A)  Knowstheofficerisattemptingtoarresttheperson;  d or  0 (B)  Hasbeenarrested.     X  E.` hp x (#` XxETenn.CodeAnn. X XXX'XX X XԀ3916603(a)(1)(A),(B)(1997).TheHolbrookscourtruledthat D   X XXXAXX X X[o]bviously,thedefendanthadnotbeenarrestedwhenhebeganrunningfromOfficerHuggins X XXX@XX X X; d nor,accordingtothecourt,wastheofficerattemptingtoarrestthedefendantatthetime. 4 Holbrooks,983S.W.2dat70203.Onthatbasis,thecourtreverseddefendantHolbrooks X XXX=XX X X  misdemeanorevadingarrestconviction.   3Pursuanttothemodeofevadingarrestforwhichthedefendantinthiscasestands h convicted,anarrestorattemptedarrestisnotoneoftheelementsoftheoffense.Codesection 4 3916603(b)(1)speaksofapersonintentionallyfleeing X XXXAXX X Xafterhavingreceivedanysignalfrom  such[lawenforcement]officertobringthevehicletoastop. X XXX@XX X XԀTenn.CodeAnn. X XXX'XX X XԀ3916 !  603(b)(1)(1997).Thestatutorylanguageisstraightforwardandunambiguous.Thedefendant P#" testifiedinhisowndefenseandclaimedthathedidnotknowthatthemenfollowinghimwere %l $  lawenforcementofficers,andheexpresslydeniedthathesawanybluelights.Thejury &8"& 3 3 3  obviouslydidnotfindthedefendanttobecredible,aswasitsprerogative,andwedonotsecond  guessthatcredibilitydetermination. |   Theevidencesupportingthedefendant X XXX=XX X Xsevadingarrestconviction,wehold,is  d legallysufficient.  4    B.ControlledSubstancePossessionwithIntenttoDeliver |    0  XFXXX (#(#    ` Thetheoryofdefenseforthecocainepossessionchargewasthatthedefendant n didnotpossessthecocainethatwaslaterfoundontheBeechBluffCemeteryroadside.Aspart B ofhistestimony,thedefendantdeniedhavinganydrugswithhimthatnightanddeniedthrowing  anythingoutofhisvehicle.Theofficerswereunanimousintheirtestimonythattheydidnotsee  thedefendantejectanyitem fromhiscar.Thedefendantarguesthatthecircumstantialevidence n isinsufficienttosupporthisconviction. B    ` Thedefendant'sappellatechallengetothesufficiencyoftheconvictingevidence : callsintoplaytherulesconcerningtheuseofcircumstantialevidence.Unquestionably,a !  criminaloffensemaybeestablishedexclusivelybycircumstantialevidence.Duchacv.State, #" 505S.W.2d237(Tenn.1973);Statev.Jones,901S.W.2d393,396(Tenn.Crim.App.1995); f% $ Statev.Lequire,634S.W.2d608(Tenn.Crim.App.1982).Before,however,anaccusedmaybe :'"& convictedofacriminaloffensebaseduponcircumstantialevidencealone,thefactsand )^$( circumstances mustbesostrongandcogentastoexcludeeveryotherreasonablehypothesis  savetheguiltofthedefendant.Statev.Crawford,225Tenn.478,482,470S.W.2d610,612  (1971);Jones,901S.W.2dat396.Inotherwords, [a]webofguiltmustbewovenaroundthe X defendantfromwhichhecannotescapeandfromwhichfactsandcircumstancesthejurycould , | drawnootherreasonableinferencesavetheguiltofthedefendantbeyondareasonabledoubt.  P Crawford,225Tenn.at484,470S.W.2dat613.  $     ` Toconvictthedefendant,thestatewasrequiredtoprove(1)knowing(2) |  possessionofcocaine(3)withintenttodeliver.Tenn.CodeAnn.3917417(a)(4)(Supp. P 2002).Ourreviewoftherecordleadsustotheconclusionthatthecircumstantialevidencein $t thiscasecannotwithstandalegalsufficiencychallenge. H    ` Thestatedirectsourattentiontocircumstances,suchasthedefendantsfailureto  submittotheofficersshowofauthorityandescapebeforecrashinghisvehicle,hismovements t insidethevehicle,thelocationofthecocaineapproximately200yardsfromthepointofthe H initialstop,theoutsideofthebagbeingwetwhiletheinsidecontentsweredry,themoneyand  l otheritemsseizedfromthedefendantsvehicle,andthesomewhatremoteareawherethe !@  cocainewasdiscovered. #"    ` Tobesure, flightandattempttoevadearrestarerelevantascircumstancesfrom l'"& which,whenconsideredwiththeotherfactsandcircumstancesinevidence,#XXXXF #XFXXXajurycanproperly @)$( drawnaninferenceofguilt.Sotkav.State,503S.W.2d212,221(Tenn.Crim.App.1972).  Thisinference,however,availsthestatelittleundertheparticularcircumstancesofthiscase.  Hadcocainebeendiscoveredinthedefendantsautomobile,hisearlierflightlogicallycouldbe X indicativeofa knowingpossessionofcocaine.Absentanydirectevidencethatthedefendant , | everhadthecocaineinhisphysicalcustody,however,hisflightisnomoreindicativeofcocaine  P possessionthan,forexample,possessionofstolengoods,drivingonarevokedlicense,orhaving  $  outstandingarrestwarrants.SeegenerallyStatev.Shepherd,862S.W.2d557,565(Tenn.Crim.   App.1992)#XXXXF#XFXXXԀ( Theinferenceofguiltwhichmayflowfromflight,concealmentofthebody,and |  falsestatementsisageneraloneanddoesnotprovideweighttothedegreeofhomicidewhich P maybeinvolved.)#XXXXF#XFXXX;Statev.Kyger,787S.W.2d13,29(Tenn.Crim.App.1989)( Whetherthe $t flightwasby[these]defendantsrequiredafactualdeterminationthatthedefendantswere H actuallytheperpetratorsbeforeanyinferencecouldbedrawn.).#XXXXF#XFXXX  #XXXXF'#XFXXX   ` Regardingthelocationandconditionofthecocainerecoveredfromtheroadside, t thestateintroducedevidencethatthecocainewaspackagedinmultipleclearplasticbagsthat H weregroupedtogetherinsidealargerplasticbag.Thelargerbagwasnotsealed.OfficerTutor  l testifiedthatastheofficerswerebacktrackingalongBeechBluffCemeteryRoad,towardthe !@  spotwherethedefendantwasinitiallystopped,theyfoundthecocaine ontherighthandsideof #" theroad,probably200yardsorsofromwhere[they]initiallystoppedhim.Thelocation, % $ OfficerTutorexplained,was prettyclosetowhere[theofficers]firstlostsightof[the l'"& defendant].AccordingtoOfficerTutor,he noticedthattheoutsideofthebagwaswetwhere @)$( itwasitwasmistingrainatthatpoint,but...theinsideofthebagwasnotwet.Investigator  Thompsonverifiedthatthecontentsofthediscoveredbagweredry,whichindicatedtohimthat  thebaghadnotbeenontheroadsidelongenoughforthecontentstobecomesaturated.#XXXXF#XFXXX X    ` Thelocationofthecocaineinrelationtotheareawherethedefendantinitially  P stoppedinvokesthesettledlawthatmerepresenceofapersoninanareawheredrugsare  $  discoveredisnot,alone,sufficienttosupportafindingthatthepersonpossessedthedrugs.See,   e.g.,Statev.Transou,928S.W.2d949,956(Tenn.Crim.App.1996);Dishmanv.State,460 |  S.W.2d855,858(Tenn.Crim.App.1970).#XXXXF$#XFXXXInourestimation,thisprinciplehasparticularforce P inthiscasebecausethecocainewasdiscoveredonapublicroadwayandnot,forexample,inside $t aresidenceorautomobile. H #XXXXF)'#XFXXX   ` Thetestimonyconcerningthedampnessoftheouterbagascontrastedwiththe  drypacketsofcocaineinsidethebagisnothelpfulotherthantodescribetheconditionofthe t cocainewhenitwasfound.Howlong,ifever,thecocainewouldhavehadtobeexposedtothe H rainbeforetheinsidepacketsbecamewetisunknown.Theanswertothatinquiryisoutsidethe  l realmofcommonexperience.Certainly,theofficerswerenotqualifiedtooffersomekindof !@   expertopiniononthattopic,andtheyconductednoexperimentstobeabletoreporttothejury #" howlongitwouldtake,undersimilaroridenticalcircumstances,beforetheinsidepackets % $ becamewet.Cf.Statev.JefferyWayneRobertson,No.M200102131CCAR3CD,slipop.at l'"& 1017(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,April17,2003)(experimentevidenceintroducedusing @)$( victimsstoveandpressurecookertoshowthatpotcouldwithstandbeingonthehighestsetting  onthestoveforatleastseventeenhours).  #XXXXFZ(#XFXXX   ` Asforthecellulartelephone,pager,and$278incurrencyfoundinthe , | defendantsvehicle,wepreviouslydiscussedtheadmissibilityofsuchevidenceasrelevanttothe  P intentoftheaccusedtoshowthatthecontrolledsubstancewaspossessedwiththepurposeof  $  sellingorotherwisedistributing.Thosepiecesofevidence,withoutmore,donotprovethata   defendantpossessedillegalnarcoticsinthefirstinstance;rather,theirusefulnesstothestateis, |  sotospeak, calledintoplaywhenthecontrovertedissuebecomessimplepossessionfor P personaluseversusanillegalproductintendedtobemarketed. $t    ` Werecognizethatthedefendantstrialtestimonymayhaveraisedsome  credibilityissuesandthatthejurymayhavebelievedthat,ifthedefendantwereuntruthfulabout  issuessuchas,forinstance,theoriginoftherazorbladefoundinhispocket,thenhewaslikely t untruthfulaboutdiscardingthebagsofcocaine.Althoughajuryisfreetorejectadefendants H testimony, disbeliefofthedefendantisnotsufficientgroundsuponwhichtobaseaninference  l of...anessentialelementofthecrimewhichthestatemustprovebeyondareasonabledoubt. !@  Statev.WilliamEarlRamsey,No.03C019203CR00070,slipop.at6(Tenn.Crim.App., #" Knoxville,May13,1993)(citingStatevWest,844S.W.2d144,148(Tenn.1992)( Although % $ thejuryispermittedtodisbelievethedefendantstestimony,itmaynotconstructatheorybased l'"& onnoevidenceatall.));seeUnitedStatesv.Tyler,758F.2d66,n.3(2dCir.1985)( Whenthe @)$( testimonyofawitnessisnotbelieved,thetrieroffactmaysimplydisregardit.Normally,the  discreditedtestimonyisnotconsideredasufficientbasisfordrawingacontraryconclusion.)  (quotingBoseCorp.v.ConsumersUnion,466U.S.485,513,104S.Ct.1949,1966(1984)). X Thus,wehavenottakenintoaccounttheimprobabilityofthedefendantstestimonyinanalyzing , | thesufficiencyoftheevidencethathepossessedcocaine.  P #XXXXFt-#XFXXX   ` Havingcarefullyreviewedtherecord,webelievethatthestatesevidenceinthis   case,atbest,provedthatcocainewasdiscoveredalongapublicroadsidewherethedefendant |  hadrecentlydriven.Theevidencedidnotweavetherequisitewebofguiltaroundthedefendant P soastoexcludeeveryotherreasonablehypothesisexceptguilt.Accordingly,thedefendants $t convictionforpossessionofcocainewithintenttodelivermustbereversed. H #XXXXF7# P:    ?(` ` hp xX(#?  IV.Conclusion    XXX d  P  E.` hp x (#` XxE    ` XXXBasedontheforegoingandtherecordasawhole,weaffirmtheconvictionof 2 evadingarrest,andwereversetheconvictionofpossessionofcocaineanddismissthatcharge.   P ` P h 0  _________________________________________&."&(#(#  h 0  JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGE(#((#(# :! : :  P`   ?(` ` hp xX(#?   P    E.` hp x (#` XxE