WPC  TuXFRFM I` Ly+aϰvƺQ4Rm&UwFYP+'`X.$v2tK; vi :d@!q[hREh$ϯ$%([xSx5d AAm+Q~<~}#17!R>T.B.r~g<*zoe9˖q4xwӒỲpcS{  0   DefendantfiledapretrialmotiontosuppressallevidenceobtainedbytheStateduetoan  unconstitutionalstopandseizureofDefendant.Theonlywitnesstotestifyatthesuppression k hearingwasTrooperR.C.ChristianoftheTennesseeHighwayPatrol.Initsruling,thetrialcourt T specificallyandunequivocallyfoundthatTrooperChristianwasacrediblewitness,andthecourt =  believedhistestimony.__ & v   TrooperChristianstestimonyrevealsthefollowingfacts.OntheeveningofJuly15,2001,  H TrooperChristianandotherofficerswereconductingaroadblockasadriverslicensecheckpoint  1  onHighway70inPutnamCountynearMonterey.Justbefore8:30p.m.,itwas beginningtoget    darkandChristianobservedDefendantsvehiclewithitsheadlightson,comingtowardthe   roadblockapproximately0.8to0.9milesaway,travelinginthewestbounddirection.Defendant   madeanabruptleftturnoffofHighway70,andthenbackedoutontoHighway70headedinthe   eastbounddirection,awayfromtheroadblock.ThelightsinDefendantsvehiclewereturnedoff n  asheturnedhisvehiclearound.ThelocationwhereDefendantturnedaroundwas0.6milesfrom W  theroadblock. @   Attheurgingofhissupervisor,Lieutenant_Shute_,Christiangotintohisvehicletopursue b Defendant.ChristiantestifiedthattheonlyreasonhepursuedDefendantwasbecauseDefendant K wasdrivingwithouthisheadlightsonatatimethatthelawrequiresheadlightstobeturnedon. 4 FromtheproofitisevidentthatChristianwasrelyinguponTenn.CodeAnn.559406(a),which  providesthat:  __  (a)Theheadlightsofeverymotorvehicleshallbesoconstructed,equipped,  arranged,focused,aimed,andadjusted,thattheywillatalltimesmentionedin q 559401,andundernormalatmosphericconditionsandonalevelroadproduce Z adrivinglightsufficienttorenderclearlydiscernibleapersontwohundredfeet C (200)ahead,butshallnotprojectaglaringordazzling lighttopersonsinfront ,| ofsuchheadlights.Suchheadlightsshallbedisplayedduringtheperiodfrom e onehalf()houraftersunsettoonehalf()hourbeforesunrise,duringfog, N smoke,orrainandatallothertimeswhenthereisnotsufficientlighttorender  7 clearlydiscernibleanypersonontheroadatadistanceoftwohundredfeet(200) !   aheadofsuchvehicle. " ! __ 2 $Tenn.CodeAnn.559406(a)(1997). $#   ChristianstoppedDefendantashortdistanceafterbeginningthechase.Defendantwas ]&!% behindanothervehicle thathadslowedhimup.BythetimeChristianstoppedDefendant, F'"& Defendanthadalreadyturnedhisheadlightsbackon.ChristianinitiallyspoketoDefendantabout /(#' drivingwithouthislightson.ThisledtoChristiansobservationofDefendantsapparent )h$( intoxication,thefailureofsobrietytests,andDefendantssubsequentarrestfor_DUI_. *Q%)   *:&*   TheStateconcededatthesuppressionhearingthatthedriverslicensecheckpointroadblock   wasan illegaloneinthatitdidnotcomplywithcourtrulingsonproperconstitutionalprocedures  forroadblocks.SeeStatev.Hicks,55S.W.3d515(Tenn.2001);Statev.Downey,945S.W.2d102  (Tenn.1997).However,ChristiantestifiedoncrossexaminationthatthestopofDefendants k vehiclewasonlybecauseDefendantwasillegallyoperatinghisvehiclewithoutitsheadlightson, T andnotbecauseDefendanthadintentionallyavoidedtheroadblock.Thepartiesstipulatedintothe =  recordDepartmentofSafetyGeneralOrder410.Aspertinenttothecaseonappeal,thisGeneral & v Ordercontainstheprovisionthat [a]motoristwhochoosestoavoidaroadblockshouldbeallowed  _ toproceedunlesstrafficviolationsareobservedorprobablecauseexiststotakeotheraction.Dept.  H ofSafetyGeneralOrder410,SectionIX,H.3(August31,2000)(emphasisadded).  1    TrooperChristiandidnotknowtheofficialtimeofsunsetonthedateofDefendantsarrest,   butheclearlytestifiedthatatthetimeheobservedDefendant,itwasdarkenoughtorequire   headlightstobeturnedon,andallothervehiclesapproachingtheroadblockhadtheirlightsturned   on.ThetrialcourtmadeaspecificfactualfindingthatTrooperChristianstoppedDefendantbecause n  ofaviolationofthemotorvehiclelightlaw,Tenn.CodeAnn.559406,andnotbecause W  Defendanthadavoidedtheroadblock.ThetrialcourtruledthatthestopofDefendantwasnot @ unconstitutionalandaccordinglydeniedDefendantsmotiontosuppressevidence. )y   ANALYSIS K   X XXX    Thefindingsoffactmadebythetrialcourtatthehearingonamotiontosuppressarebinding  uponthiscourtunlesstheevidencecontainedintherecordpreponderatesagainstthem.Statev.  Ross,49S.W.3d833,839(Tenn.2001).Thetrialcourt,asthetrieroffact,isabletoassessthe  credibilityofthewitnesses,determinetheweightandvaluetobeaffordedtheevidenceandresolve  anyconflictsintheevidence.Statev._Odom_,928S.W.2d18,23(Tenn.1996).Theprevailingparty s isentitledtothestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceandallreasonableinferencesdrawnfrom \ thatevidence.Statev.Hicks,55S.W.3d515,521(Tenn.2001).However,thiscourtisnotbound E bythetrialcourtsconclusionsoflaw.Statev.Simpson,968S.W.2d776,779(Tenn.1998).The .~ applicationofthelawtothefactsfoundbythetrialcourtarequestionsoflawthatthiscourtreviews g denovo.Statev.Daniel,12S.W.3d420,423(Tenn.2000).Thedefendanthastheburdenof  P establishingthattheevidencecontainedintherecordpreponderatesagainstthefindingsoffactmade  9 bythetrialcourt._Braziel_Ԁv.State,529S.W.2d501,506(Tenn._Crim_.App.1975). !"    Itiswellsettledthatanautomobilestopconstitutesaseizurewithinthemeaningofboththe #" FourthAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleI,section7oftheTennessee $# Constitution.Statev.Harper,31S.W.3d267,271(Tenn._Crim_.App.2000).Aminortraffic v% $ violationconstitutesprobablecauseforaninvestigatorystopofavehicle.Statev.Vineyard,958 _&!% S.W.2d730,734(Tenn.1997).#XX X XS&# X XXXThefactthatareasonablepoliceofficermightnothavestoppedthe H'"& vehiclefortheallegedtrafficviolationdoesnotrenderthestopillegal.See_Whren_Ԁ_v._ԀUnitedStates, 1(#' 517U.S.806,116S.Ct.1769,135L.Ed._2d_Ԁ89(1996).However,theofficermusthaveactually )j$( observedtheallegedviolationuponwhichthestopwasbased.Id.#XX X X.# X XXX *S%)   *<&*   Defendantarguesthatthemotiontosuppressshouldhavebeengrantedbecausethe   roadblockwasconductedinanunconstitutionalmanner.HereliesuponStatev.Hicks,55S.W.3d  515(Tenn.2001)andStatev.Downey,945S.W.2d102(Tenn.1997).Initsbriefonappeal,the  Statedoesnotmentionthesecases,muchlessdirectlyaddresstheeffect,ifany,ofthesecaseson k theissueraisedonappeal.Nevertheless,weconcludethatDefendantsrelianceonHicksand T Downeyismisplaced.Atthetrialcourtlevel,theStateconcededthattheroadblockwasconducted =  inanunconstitutionalmanneraccordingtotheholdingsinHicksandDowney.Procedural & v requirementsforroadblockssetforthbythesupremecourtwerenonexistentinthisroadblock.  _ Notwithstandingtheroadblocksnoncompliancewithconstitutionalsafeguards,theevidenceclearly  H showsthatDefendantwas seizedbecauseprobablecauseexistedthathewasoperatinghisvehicle  1  inviolationofthelawapproximately0.6milesawayfromtheroadblockandwasheadedina    directionawayfromtheroadblock.     Defendantindicatesinhisbriefthathesupplementedtheappellaterecordwitha latefiled   exhibitwhichdemonstratesthatsunsetinMonterey,Tennessee,onJuly15,2001,wasat7:59p.m. n  DefendantarguesthatsincehewasnotstoppedbyTrooperChristianuntil8:30p.m.,Defendant W  couldnothaveviolatedthelightlawuntilafter8:29p.m.,whenhislightswerealreadybackon. @ Thisdocumentisnotintherecord.Evenifitwasintherecord,wecouldnotconsideritbecause )y itwasnotmadeanexhibitinthetrialcourt. Theinclusionofadocumentinwhathasbeen b commonlyreferredtoasthetechnicalrecordwillnot,asamatteroflaw,permitthisCourtto K considerthedocumentwhenithasnotbeenintroducedasevidenceorauthenticatedbythetrial 4 court.Statev.Cooper,736S.W.2d125,131(Tenn._Crim_.App.1987).    Undertheproperstandardofreview,t`herecordshowsthatTrooperChristianhadprobable  causetopursueandstopDefendantawayfromtheroadblock.ThefactthatTrooperChristianwas  standingataconstitutionally illegalroadblockatthetimeheobservedDefendantsconductaway q fromtheroadblockisnotsignificanttotheresolutionofthecertifiedquestionoflaw.Accordingly, Z Defendantisnotentitledtoreliefinthisappeal. C   CONCLUSION  e     Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.#XX X X/1#  8    `     h   ___________________________________ u% $    `     h   THOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE