WPC= =JkA%# 7<@wJ ~aphX[WZc~#65\P>hޥv'0s҄#&qfZ C ς\;$*>\b%!LH}#j9[]_n[h(eI&il(;h1H>QR1ۺ1‡z{/O(b6Q4lʇ WTPfF먘0V#tudPx6jX&:M nsr9|$yy..-_HL~,Ѓ0zqMTgYG0By$}-Ϥmw%TNXͼaX2])5 XW_4z\k<jZ9c[x1Rq2_mm%M>6u 9 ^_# % N 0 U N# 0Uq 0 z ) zu^ GwSW4oNE m 0 0 0x 0X 05 0 0 0C 0 0 0 0y 0G 0 0 0 0@_ 0 0s! 0D" 0# 0#b$ 0$ 0r% 04& 00& 0<!' 0]' 0>( 0vY( 0`( 0`/) 0`) 0`) 0`O* 08* 0* 02+ 0+ 0:, 0Y!- 0_z- 0 - 0j. 0M0 B*1 D/1 0*2 D/3 03 064 04 0:5 0^#6 0<6 AM6U6 7 0@7U>+8U*i8UN8 B88 09 D39 D-9 0K :U@U: AS:: 0; 0DR< A< 0DA=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A= 0N=HP LaserJet 40500(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   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 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-s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53j1,,&bk3|xU*D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -(8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7G(X7  ?T%2A`Arial?  SS\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dF)1dxd<:zTop of For7I(X7  ?T%2A`Arial?  SS\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7F)2dxd0KS.SampleKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  X[ZA<< c<6X9`(Courier New(|G2K$ !.8\dd8         0  \  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular d (|3Lj$ !.8\dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  (I Z(Times New Roman ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Lj$ !.8\dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK(#$  0  (O$ !.8\dd8     _   \8XXdd8\\\@tt\M\\INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#\\\M+#Ԉ &    @  @` June18,2002Session L \XX\\ #\\X\X2#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.BRENTTODPERKINS\XX\\  J @@ InterlocutoryAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforSevierCounty  J @@No.8473RichardVance,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200101826CCAR9CD   August21,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thedefendant,BrentTodPerkins,waschargedwithdrivingundertheinfluence.Thetrialcourt x  determinedthattheofficerhadreasonablesuspiciontostopthedefendantsvehicle,butgranteda d defensemotiontosuppresstheresultsofabreathalysertest,concludingthattheofficerfailedto P complywiththerequirementsofStatev.Sensing,843S.W.2d412(Tenn.1992).Boththestateand < thedefendantweregrantedaninterlocutoryappealpursuanttoRule9oftheTennesseeRulesof (x AppellateProcedure.Theinvestigatorystopwasconductedwithconstitutionalsafeguards.Because d thestatefailedtoestablishadherencetotheSensingrequirementsbyapreponderanceofthe P evidence,theordersuppressingtheresultsofthebreathalyserexamisaffirmed. <  Tenn.R.App.P.9;JudgmentoftheTrialCourtAffirmed     #\\\X#\XX.\\GaryR.Wade,P.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.WellesandNorma  McGeeOgle,JJ.,joined.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;ElizabethB.Marney,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; ` andCharlesAtchley,Jr.,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,forthecrossappellee,Stateof L  Tennessee. 8!  BryanDelius,Sevierville,Tennessee,forthecrossappellant,BrentTodPerkins. #`"  @@OO& OPINION #\\X\X/ #\XX\\ $8 $ #\\X\X #  \XX\\  IntheearlymorninghoursofAugust17,2000,OfficerHelenWrightofthePigeonForge &"& PoliceDepartmentobservedavehicleparkedneartheentranceoftheShadyOaksCampground.The '"' enginewasrunning.WhenOfficerWrightdrovecloserinordertoinvestigate,thevehiclewas (#( quicklydrivenaway.OfficerWrightidentifiedthedriverasamaleandfollowedthevehicleuntil )$) itwasdriventotheJ&BMarket.Theoccupantsofthevehicle,amaleandafemale,wentinsidethe p*%* marketand,upontheirreturn,thefemaleenteredthedriverssideofthetruckandthemaleoccupied \+&+ thepassengerseat.OfficerWrightfollowedthevehicleasitwasdrivenfromthemarketand,after H,', shesawthetruckeithertouchorstraddlethelanemarkersontwooccasions,initiatedatrafficstop. 4-(- Ї  OfficerWrightdirectedthefemaledrivertostepoutofthevehicleandaskedhertoexplain  whysheandthemaledriver,thedefendant,hadswitchedplacesatthemarket.Thewomaninformed  OfficerWrightthatthedefendantwastoointoxicatedtodrive.Aftersmellingalcohol,theofficer  administeredfieldsobrietyteststothefemaledriveranddeterminedthatshewasnottoointoxicated t tooperatethevehicle;upondiscoveringthatthewomandidnotpossessavalidoperatorslicense, ` however,OfficerWrightapproachedthedefendantinanefforttoascertainwhetherhewouldbeable L  todrive.Again,OfficerWrightsmelledanodorofalcoholandaskedthedefendantwhetherhehad 8  beendrinking.Whenthedefendantadmittedthathehadconsumedahalfpintofliquor,Officer $ t Wrightadministeredfieldsobrietytests.Whenthedefendantfailedtheoneleggedstand,thewalk  ` andturn,andthehorizontalgazenystagmustests,hewasarrestedfordrivingundertheinfluence.  L    Afterarrivingatthepolicestation,OfficerWrightescortedthedefendanttoasmalloffice $  wheresheaskedhimanumberofquestionsinordertocompletethearrestreport.Approximately   twentysevenminutesaftertheirarrivalatthestation,OfficerWrightadministeredabreathalyser   exam,whichindicatedabreathalcoholcontentof.11%.Atthehearingonthemotiontosuppress,   OfficerWrightacknowledgedthatshedidnotobservethedefendant eyeballtoeyeballfortwenty   minutesandthatshehadperformedpaperworkforbetweenfiveandsevenminutesofthe p observationperiod.Inaddition,OfficerWrighttestifiedthatherbackwastothedefendantduring \ thebriefperiodoftimerequiredforwalkingfromasmallofficeintoanadjacentroom,whereshe H conductedthebreathalyserexamination.Theofficermaintainedthatthedefendantdidnotbelch, 4 vomit,smoke,orputanythingintohismouthatanytimeduringthetwentyminutespriorto  p submittingtothetest.  \   Thetrialcourtruledasfollows: 4 8  [U]ndertheKorsakovdecision,...theverystrictruleslaiddown,this20minute   observationperioddidnotmeetthetest.   8   ` ImgoingtogranttheMotiontoSuppressinthatunderthehighstandards  requiredbyKorsakovandSensingthatthisofficerwasunabletoobservethe l defendantforacontinuous20minutesuptothemoment[of]givingthetest.X    Thetrialcourtnoted,however,thatifthecasewerecivilratherthancriminal, 0"  8  ajurywouldhavenodifficultyinsayingthattheStatehadcarriedits[burden]bya $X" preponderanceoftheevidence....Theresnoevidencethat[thedefendant]had $D # anythinginhismouth,buttheState,undertheserulesisrequiredtoproveanegative. %0!$ Thatisthelaw.The[c]ourtwillfollowthelawandgrantthemotion.&"%     InStatev.Sensing,oursupremecourtheldthatforabreathtesttobeadmissible,thetesting (#'  officermustbeabletotestifyasfollows: )$( 8  (1)thatthetestswereperformedinaccordancewiththestandardsandoperating  procedurepromulgatedbytheforensicservicesdivisionoftheTennesseeBureauof  Investigation(TBI);    8  (2)thattheadministeringofficerwasproperlycertifiedinaccordancewiththose t standards;`   8  (3)thattheevidentiarybreathtestinginstrumentusedwascertifiedbytheforensic L  servicesdivision,wastestedregularlyforaccuracyandwasworkingproperlywhen 8  thebreathtestwasperformed;$ t   8  (4)thatthemotoristwasobservedfortherequisite20minutespriortothetest,and  ` duringthisperiod,hedidnothaveforeignmatterinhismouth,didnotconsumeany  L  alcoholicbeverage,smoke,orregurgitate; 8    8  (5)thattheadministeringofficerfollowedtheprescribedoperationalprocedure;and$    8  (6)thattheadministeringofficercanidentifytheprintoutrecordofferedinevidence   astheresultofthetestgiventothepersontested.    843S.W.2dat416.ThesixrequirementsinSensingaremandatoryandmustbeprovenbya   preponderanceoftheevidence.Statev.Edison,9S.W.3d75,77(Tenn.1999).Thiscourthasruled p thattheSensingrequirementsmustbe"scrupulouslyfollowed."Statev.HaroldE.Fields,No. \ 01C01-9412-CC-00438(Tenn.Crim.App.,atNashville,Apr.12,1996).Theprerequisites,once H provenbyapreponderanceoftheevidence,establishtheproprietyofthetestresults.Edison,9 4 S.W.3dat77.Further,itisthestatesburdentoestablishcompliancewitheachoftherequirements;  p thedefendantdoesnotbearanyburdentoshownon-compliance.Thefindingofthetrialcourtis  \ presumedtobecorrectandshouldonlybeoverturnediftheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Id. H at78. 4   Inthisappeal,thestatesubmitsthatthetrialcourtinterpretedthefourthSensingrequirement   toostrictly.Thedefendantassertsthatthetrialjudgeproperlyconcludedthattheofficerdidnot  observehimforafulltwentyminutessoastoassurethathedidnothaveanyforeignmatterinhis  mouth.Initially,caselawprovidesthatanofficermaynotguess,estimateorapproximatethe  amountoftimethesubjectwasunderobservation.SeeStatev.Hackney,No. l 01C01-9704-CC-00152(Tenn.Crim.App.,atNashville,Feb.20,1998);Fields,slipop.at5.While X  anunblinkinggazeisnotrequired, theofficermustbewatchingthedefendantratherthan D! performingothertasks.Statev.Korsakov,34S.W.3d534,540(Tenn.Crim.App.2000).The 0"  twentyminuteobservationrequirementcarrieswithittwodistinctelements:(1)Thestatemust #l! demonstratethatthedefendantwasobservedfortwentyminutes,and(2)thestatemustestablishthat $X" thesubjectdidnotsmoke,drink,eat,chewgum,vomit,regurgitate,belchorhiccupduringthe $D # twentyminutespriortotakingthetest. %0!$   Thepurposeoftheobservationrequirementis,ofcourse,toensure thatnoforeignmatter '#& ispresentinthedefendant'smouththatcouldretainalcoholandpotentiallyinfluencetheresultsof (#' thetest.Statev.Cook,9S.W.3d98,100-01(Tenn.1999).UXXX\XԀOursupremecourthasfoundthat if )$(  credibleproofestablishesthatthesubjectdidnothaveforeignmatterinthemouth,didnotconsume |*%) anyalcoholicbeverage,anddidnotsmokeorregurgitate,thentheruleissatisfied.Statev.Hunter,  941S.W.2d56,57-58(Tenn.1997).#\XXXUX.#     PriortothecourtsdecisioninSensing,thetestifyingofficerwasrequiredtobequalified t througheducation,training,andexperienceto interpretthetestresultsinevidenceasaprerequisite ` toadmissibility.Pruittv.State,216Tenn.686,393S.W.2d747,751(Tenn.1965).Thestatewas L  requiredto showthatthemeasuringdevice[was]scientificallyacceptableandaccurate...andthat 8  thewitnesswhopresentsthetestresultsisqualifiedtointerpretthem.Id.InPruitt,oursupreme $ t courtstatedthatalesserstandardwouldbetantamounttoapprovalof purehearsayevidenceof  ` intoxication.393S.W.2dat752;seealsoStatev.Johnson,717S.W.2d298(Tenn.Crim.App.  L  1986).  8    In1985,ourstatutoryschemewasamendedtoestablishastatewideprocedurefor   administeringbreathtestsinsuchamannerastoensurereliabilityandaccuracy:   8   ` (d)(2)UponapprovalofthedirectoroftheTennesseebureauof   investigation,localgoverningbodieswhichhavetheresponsibilityforproviding p fundingforsheriffs'officesandpolicedepartments,areauthorizedtopurchasefrom \ statecontractsapprovedforbureaupurchases,scientificinstrumentsdesignedto H examineaperson'sbreathandmeasurethealcoholcontentthereof,foruseas 4 evidenceinthetrialofcases;provided,thatpriortousethereof,suchinstruments  p mustbedeliveredtotheforensicservicesdivisionofthebureaufortestingand  \ certificationpursuanttosubsection(g).Thebureaushallcontinuetomaintainand H certifytheinstrumentsandoperatingpersonnel,pursuanttosubsection(g),and 4 furnishexperttestimonyinsupportoftheuseofsuchinstrumentswhenrequired.       ` *    h *     p *   8   ` (g)Thebureau,throughitsforensicservicesdivision,shallestablish,  authorize,approveandcertifytechniques,methods,proceduresandinstrumentsfor  thescientificexaminationandanalysisofevidence,includingblood,urine,breathor  otherbodilysubstances,andteachandcertifyqualifyingpersonnelintheoperation l ofsuchinstrumentstomeettherequirementsofthelawfortheadmissibilityof X  evidence.Whenexaminations,testsandanalyseshavebeenperformedincompliance D! withsuchstandardsandprocedures,theresultsshallbeprimafacieadmissibleinto 0"  evidenceinanyjudicialorquasijudicialproceedingsubjecttotherulesofevidence #l! asadministeredbythecourts.$X"   Tenn.CodeAnn.38-6-103(d)(2),(g).Thereafter,oursupremecourtpronouncedthegeneral %0!$ foundationalrequirementsfortheadmissibilityofbreathtestsinSensing.See843S.W.2dat416. &"%   UndertheSensingguidelines,therequirementsfortheadmissionofscientificevidencein (#' theformofbreathtestresultswererelaxed.Id.Inconsequence,thiscourthasheldthatstrict )$( compliancewiththeSensingrequirementsisrequiredforadmissibilityofbreathtestresults.See |*%) Fields,slipop.at4. h+&* Ї  BecauseOfficerWrightutilizedaportionofthetwentyminuteobservationperiodto  completepaperworkincidenttothearrest,thedefendantcontendsthattherulinginSensing  precludesadmissionofthebreathtestresults.Itisundisputedthatthedocumentationtook  approximatelyfivetosevenminutestocompleteandinvolvedquestionsbytheofficer,responses t bythedefendant,andtherecordationofthoseresponsesinthereport.Theproofestablishedthat ` duringthefivetosevenminutesrequired,OfficerWrightwaslessthananarmslengthawayfrom L  thedefendantandfullyengagedinconversationwithhim.Whiletheofficerconcededthatshecould 8  notseethedefendantsfaceastheywalkedintotheroomwherethebreathalyserexaminationtook $ t place,theroomwasadjacenttotheofficewherethedefendantwasquestionedandtestimony  ` establishedthatthesemovementswouldhavetakenonlyafewseconds.OfficerWrightstatedthat  L  therewasnoindicationthatthedefendantbelched,vomited,orplacedanyforeignmatterintohis  8  mouthinthisbriefinterlude.UXXX\XԀNevertheless,#\XXXUXD#thestatewasunabletoestablishthattheofficerwatched $  thedefendantforacontinuoustwentyminuteperiod.SeeKorsakov,34S.W.3dat541.Inourview,   thetrialcourtcorrectlyconcluded,underthestrictrequirementsofSensingandKorsakov,thatthe   breathtestresultsmustbeexcluded.Becausetheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrial   courtsfindingthatthestatefailedtoestablishthefourthSensingrequirement,thejudgmentofthe   trialcourtsuppressingtheresultsofthebreathalyserexamisaffirmed. p   ThatthestatehasfailedtocomplywiththeSensingrequirementsdoesnotnecessarily H precludetheadmissionoftheresultsattrial.ThestatemayproceedunderRules702and703ofthe 4 TennesseeRulesofEvidenceandestablishafoundationwhichensuresthereliabilityofthetest  p resultsinordertosecuretheiradmissionintoevidence.Statev.Deloit,964S.W.2d909,913(Tenn.  \ Crim.App.1997);Korsakov,34S.W.3dat542.UnderRule702,experttestimonymaybeusedto H presentscientificortechnicalinformationiftheevidencewill substantiallyassistthetrieroffact. 4 Establishingthereliabilityoftheinformationiskeyindeterminingwhetherthetrieroffactwillbe   assistedbytheevidence.SeeStatev.Harris,866S.W.2d583,587(TennCrim.App.1992).Rule   703imposestherequirementthattheunderlyingfactsordatabetrustworthy.Thesegeneral  requirementsfortheadmissionofscientificortechnicalevidencefairlyandadequatelyembracethe  concernsexpressedinPruittthatbreathtestresultsbe scientificallyacceptableandaccurateforthe  purposeforwhich[theyare]used,andthatthewitnesswhopresentsthetestresultsisqualifiedto l interpretthem.Pruitt,393S.W.2dat751. X    II 0"       Thedefendantalsocontendsthattheresultsoftheexamshouldbesuppressedbecause #l! OfficerWrightlackedreasonablesuspiciontoconductaninvestigatorystopofhisvehicle.Thetrial $X" courtidentifiedthefollowingcircumstancesasgivingrisetoreasonablesuspicion:(1)thelateness $D # ofthehour;(2)theofficershavingbeendirectedto keepaneyeonthetrailerpark;(3)the %0!$ defendant'svehiclebeingquicklydrivenawayaftertheofficerenteredthearea;(4)thedefendant's &"% havingswitchedpositionswithhisfemalepassenger;and(5)thefemaledriver'shaving straddled '#& thelanemarkers.Thetrialcourtdeterminedthat baseduponallofthecircumstances,coupledwith (#' thisofficersownexperience[,]...[theofficer]didhavesufficient,reasonablesuspiciontostopthis )$( vehicle. |*%)  h+&*   Boththestateandfederalconstitutionsprotectindividualsfromunreasonablesearchesand  seizures;thegeneralruleisthatawarrantlesssearchorseizureispresumedunreasonableandany  evidencediscoveredsubjecttosuppression.U.S.Const.amendIV;Tenn.Const.art.I,7;  Coolidgev.NewHampshire,403U.S.443,454,29L.Ed.2d564,91S.Ct.2022(1971);Statev. t Bridges,963S.W.2d487,490(Tenn.1997).Anautomobilestopconstitutesa"seizure"withinthe ` meaningofboththeFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleI,section7 L  oftheTennesseeConstitution.MichiganDep'tofStatePolicev.Sitz,496U.S.444,450,110L.Ed. 8  2d412,110S.Ct.2481(1990);Delawarev.Prouse,440U.S.648,653,59L.Ed.2d660,99S.Ct. $ t 1391(1979);Statev.Binion,900S.W.2d702,705(Tenn.Crim.App.1994);Statev.Westbrooks,  ` 594S.W.2d741,743(Tenn.Crim.App.1979).Thatthedetentionmaybebriefandlimitedinscope  L  doesnotalterthatfact.Prouse,440U.S.at653;Statev.Pulley,863S.W.2d29,30(Tenn.1993);  8  Binion,900S.W.2dat705;Westbrooks,594S.W.2dat743.Thebasicquestion,asindicated,is $  whethertheseizurewas"reasonable."Binion,900S.W.2dat705(citingSitz,496U.S.at444).The   statealwayscarriestheburdenofestablishingthereasonablenessofanydetention.SeeStatev.   MatthewManuel,No.87-96-III(Tenn.Crim.App.,atNashville,Nov.23,1988).     Amongthenarrowlydefinedexceptionstothewarrantrequirementisaninvestigatorystop. p SeeTerryv.Ohio,392U.S.1,20L.Ed.2d889,88S.Ct.1868(1968).Aninvestigatorystopis \ deemedlessintrusivethananarrest.Seeid.InPulley,oursupremecourtruledthat"the H reasonablenessofseizureslessintrusivethanafull-scalearrestisjudgedbyweighingthegravityof 4 thepublicconcern,thedegreetowhichtheseizureadvancesthatconcern,andtheseverityofthe  p intrusionintoindividualprivacy."863S.W.2dat30.  \   Ourdeterminationofthereasonablenessofthestopofthevehicledependsonwhetherthe 4 officerhadeitherprobablecauseoran"articulableandreasonablesuspicion"thatthevehicleorits   occupantsweresubjecttoseizureforviolationofthelaw.SeeProuse,440U.S.at663;Statev.   Coleman,791S.W.2d504,505(Tenn.Crim.App.1989).Probablecausehasbeengenerallydefined  asareasonablegroundforsuspicion,supportedbycircumstancesindicativeofanillegalact.See  Leav.State,181Tenn.378,380-81,181S.W.2d351,352(1944).Whileprobablecauseisnot  necessaryforaninvestigativestop,itisarequirementthattheofficer'sreasonablesuspicionbe l supportedby"specificandarticulablefactswhich,takentogetherwithrationalinferencesfromthose X  facts,reasonablywarrantthatintrusion."Terry,392U.S.at21;Pulley,863S.W.2dat30;Coleman, D! 792S.W.2dat505;seealsoStatev.Watkins,827S.W.2d293,294(Tenn.1992)(applyingTerry 0"  doctrineincontextofvehicularstop).Indeterminingwhetherreasonablesuspicionexists,an #l! importantfactorintheanalysisisthatreasonablesuspicionisalessdemandingstandardthan $X" probablecausenotonlyinthesensethatreasonablesuspicioncanbeestablishedwithinformation $D # thatisdifferentinquantityorcontentthanthatrequiredtoestablishprobablecause,butalsointhe %0!$ sensethatreasonablesuspicioncanarisefrominformationthatislessreliablethanthatrequiredto &"% showprobablecause.Pulley,863S.W.2dat32(quotingAlabamav.White,496U.S.325,330,110 '#& L.Ed.2d301,110S.Ct.2412(1990)). (#'   Courtsconsideringtheissueofreasonablesuspicionmustlooktothetotalityofthe |*%) circumstances.Thosecircumstancesincludethepersonalobservationsofthepoliceofficer, h+&* informationobtainedfromotherofficersoragencies,informationobtainedfromcitizens,andthe  patternofoperationofcertainoffenders.Watkins,827S.W.2dat294(citingUnitedStatesv.  Cortez,449U.S.411,417-18(1981)).Objectivestandardsapplyratherthanthesubjectivebeliefs  oftheofficermakingthestop.Statev.Norword,938S.W.2d23,25(Tenn.Crim.App.1996). t   InStatev.Odom,928S.W.2d18(Tenn.1996),oursupremecourtheldthatatrialcourt's L  findingsoffactinasuppressionhearingshouldbeupheldunlesstheevidencepreponderates 8  otherwise.Theapplicationofthelawtothefacts,however,remainsaquestionoflawthatrequires $ t denovoreview.Statev.Daniel,12S.W.3d420,423-24(Tenn.2000).Iftheevidencedoesnot  ` involveacredibilityassessment,thereviewingcourtmustexaminetherecorddenovowithouta  L  presumptionofcorrectness.Statev.Yeargan,958S.W.2d626,629(Tenn.1997).  8    Thearrestingofficerfirstobservedthedefendantsvehicleparkedattheentranceofa   campgroundatapproximately1:45a.m.Becausethedepartmenthadpriorconcernsaboutsuspected   illegalactivityinthearea,OfficerWrightdevelopedimmediatesuspicionwhenthedefendants   vehicle,parkedwiththeengineidling,wasdrivenawayasshedrovehercruiserwithinsight.That   thevehiclewasdrivenawayatahighrateofspeedarousedfurtherinterest.Whenthedefendant, p asdriver,switchedplaceswithhisfemalepassengeratthemarketandthefemaledrivereither \  straddledortouchedthelanemarkerstwotimes,thecircumstanceswarrantedaninvestigatory H stop.Inourview,thetrialcourtproperlyconcludedthattherewerespecific,articulablefactsupon 4 whichtodetainthevehicle.  p   Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed. H    `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     GARYR.WADE,PRESIDINGJUDGE