ÿWPCe Ðo½@oGálç7©dìª> òýf&öRk}m€Çö¦²álê7ÐBÛH‰_ÊL¯0ÒisCrÏžéûƒUØü‚˜·L÷q2¡uR’]°ä[uí[ß$iʇ‚·„…’‰o”=%°ßqä¯r£¸Pê¡”’”ZU&¬õUÅ4õ ×#íŽÎº#½j’Iaj’ì:h9”Gtæ÷š©–Š?6¥f=+s"ñY’õý©h¡ i_ 5ÙˆvY°»¥%«Ü¸£4¾ˆÂN£±^!Ã/–ÞÖQHQªã:Q2Àž_!W'™@á—"TÜ;“A+Þ§5ÑtvÏfO¸‰k®N˜ì9ákGxÆ‚Fòí3m©kଜX[¥:õÈ@iˆ½#ޤ'VMÓúŠãR³"¦ž‰(ò£çë½Q8ÚLá®ìÀI̻ԽÐè´ëfÚ®‘¨Àû}]k…Ab…+˜Òä5 PªƒF!1ËÇ9k-m‚á£Pe9TÆP’wÎø©i\y`9«r‹ÛˆÐj£jï{Ô¸ÅÕnÏUÅUt¼ýœ­“å§+êÈËaøÄ((õ3}Ï !üS¯E1nè}0“A™)j}º&ÐJ¿äó­ÛÖª‰Ò¯Ÿ¡}Mó“:Û/ØÒ?b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ U@™ ÆÙ ÆŸ ÆeÆ+öñNç)é 0DEVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVbXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 0ë```` BKK 0¤h D5  D-A 0Knn AS¹Æ  0¤Ò 0Dv A«º»Y£‡1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularh_B0ê:i¢×+003|x ˜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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ARMENTAARMANDOOROZCOWheatcraft P.J.MarneyGallatinSkidmore OdomBrazielBinetteStarksHuntingborodetainersKristyKenigsoncodefendantcodefendantsCothranI]nevitableKlinghornAmandoKinghorn Ý ƒR³Ã$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôätò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Officer€Starksðð€Spanish€language€was€learned€in€a€threeÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔÔ_ÔdayÔ_Ô€ð ðSurvival€Spanishðð€course.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2³Ã$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ØQ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôätò»»Ô d(|37$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ØQ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|37$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ØQ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ØQ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼ØQ»»»ÔÑ8€ßXXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î6^ØQÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼ØQ»îî6^ #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àOctober€12,€2004€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡XßX»¼ØQÔÌò òÔ#†¼ØQ»XXß#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€ROBERTO€REYES„ARMENTA€ANDÐ ï? ÐARMANDO€LOPEZ„OROZCOòòóóÔ‡XßX»¼ØQÔó óÐ  P ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sumner€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€816„2003€€€€€€Jane€Wheatcraft,€JudgeÐ ä 4 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<¡` AßÐ ¢ò  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2004„00419„CCA„R3„CD€Filed€December€7,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ›ë  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<n` AßÐ o¿  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€State€appeals€from€an€adverse€ruling€on€a€suppression€motion.€€The€State€contends€that€the€trialÐ g· Ðcourt€erred€in€finding€the€consent€to€search€was€not€knowing€or€voluntary€and€that€discovery€of€theÐ P  Ðcontraband€was€not€inevitable.€€The€State€avers€that€the€standard€of€review€should€be€òòde€novoóóÐ 9‰ Ðwithout€presumption€of€correctness.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed,€and€the€cause€isÐ "r Ðremanded€for€further€proceedings.Ð  [ ÐÓåÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed€andÐ Ý- ÐRemandedó óÐ Ç ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼ØQ»àXßÀ#ÔÔ‡XßX.¼ØQÔJohn€Everett€Williams,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.,óó€andÐ šê ÐòòDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ƒÓ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Marney,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð U¥ ÐLawrence€Ray€Whitley,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Dee€David€Gay,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ >Ž ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellant,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ' w ÐÌJoe€D.€Harsh,€Gallatin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Roberto€Reyes„Armenta.Ð ù!I! ÐÌCheryl€J.€Skidmore,€Gallatin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Armando€Lopez„Orozco.Ð Ë## ÐÓ¦ÓÌÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼ØQ»XXßÕ#ÔÔ‡XßX»¼ØQÔÐ †&Ö!& ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼ØQ»XXßñ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XßX»¼ØQÔÓ XÓThis€case€arose€from€a€vehicle€stop€and€search€on€I„65€by€the€Highway€Interdiction€TeamÐ Y(©#( Ðof€the€18th€Judicial€District€Task€Force.€€The€occupants€of€the€stopped€vehicle€were€two€youngÐ B)’$) ÐHispanic€males.€€A€search€of€the€vehicle€resulted€in€the€discovery€of€approximately€nineteen€ouncesÐ +*{%* Ðof€methamphetamine.€€The€codefendants,€Roberto€Reyes€and€Armando€Lopez,€were€indicted€forÐ +d&+ Ðpossession€of€over€100€grams€of€a€Schedule€II€controlled€substance€with€intent€to€sell€or€deliver.€Ð ý+M', Ðâ âThe€trial€court€suppressed€the€seized€evidence,€finding€that€the€consent€to€search€was€not€knowingÐ æ,6(-ý Ðand€voluntary.€€The€State€appeals,€contending€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€the€consentÐ ° Ðinvoluntary€and€unknowing€and€in€holding€that€discovery€of€the€contraband€was€not€inevitable.Ð ™é Ðâ âÐ ‚Ò ÐOur€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€a€suppression€hearing€has,€by€longstandingÐ k» Ðprecedent,€been€deferential.€€Ô‡ Xª5 XXXßÔThe€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€at€the€hearing€on€a€motionÐ T¤ Ðto€suppress€are€binding€upon€this€Court€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderatesÐ =  Ðagainst€them.€€òòState€v.€Rossóó,€49€S.W.3d€833,€839€(Tenn.€2001).€€The€trial€court,€as€the€trier€of€fact,Ð & v Ðis€able€to€assess€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€determine€the€weight€and€value€to€be€afforded€theÐ  _ Ðevidence,€and€resolve€any€conflicts€in€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.Ð ø H Ð1996).€€The€prevailing€party€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÐ á 1  Ðreasonable€inferences€drawn€from€that€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€55€S.W.3d€515,€521€(Tenn.€2001).€Ð Ê   ÐHowever,€this€Court€is€not€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law.€€òòState€v.€Randolphóó,€74Ð ³  ÐS.W.3d€330,€333€(Tenn.€2002).€€The€application€of€the€law€to€the€facts€found€by€the€trial€court€areÐ œì  Ðquestions€of€law€that€this€Court€reviews€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Danielóó,€12€S.W.3d€420,€423€(Tenn.€2000).€Ð …Õ  ÐThe€appellant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderatesÐ n¾  Ðagainst€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court.€€òòBraziel€v.€Stateóó,€529€S.W.2d€501,€506€(Tenn.Ð W§  ÐCrim.€App.€1975).Ô#†XßX X Xª5á#ÔÐ @ ÐÐ )y ÐThe€State€claims€that€deference€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings€in€this€cause€is€inappropriate.€€ItÐ b Ðbases€this€claim€on€the€contention€that€the€trial€court€relied€exclusively€on€the€videotape€and€aÐ ûK Ðtranscript€of€the€dialogue€between€the€officers€and€the€defendants€for€its€finding€of€unknowing€andÐ ä4 Ðinvoluntary€consent.€€The€State€further€argues€that€the€trial€court€made€no€findings€of€credibility€and,€Ð Í Ðthus,€our€review€should€be€purely€òòde€novoóó€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòState€v.€Binetteóó,Ð ¶ Ð33€S.W.3d€215,€217€(Tenn.€2000).Ð Ÿï ÐÐ ˆØ ÐOn€September€12,€2003,€Officer€Jody€Starks,€a€member€of€the€18th€Judicial€District€DrugÐ qÁ ÐTask€Force€assigned€to€the€Highway€Interdiction€Team,€was€stationed€on€I„65€observing€northboundÐ Zª Ðtraffic.€€Officer€Starksðð€attention€was€drawn€to€the€defendantsðð€vehicle€when€the€passenger€exhibitedÐ C“ Ðwhat€Starks€called€ð ðthe€drive.ðð€€The€officer€described€ð ðthe€driveðð€as€a€ð ðdead„ahead€stareðð€with€noÐ ,| Ðacknowledgment€of€the€officerððs€vehicle.€€Another€characteristic€of€this€phenomenon€is€for€driversÐ e Ðto€ignore€the€police€vehicle€and€to€have€their€hands€positioned€at€ten€and€two€oððclock€on€the€steeringÐ þN Ðwheel.€€Starks€had€been€trained€that€exhibition€of€ð ðthe€driveðð€often€indicates€a€criminal€offender.€Ð ç 7 ÐOfficer€Starks€followed€the€defendantððs€vehicle€and€said€he€observed€the€driver€move€into€the€right„Ð Ð!   Ðhand€lane€in€front€of€a€tractor€trailer,€causing€the€truck€to€slow€down.€€As€a€result,€Starks€said€thatÐ ¹" ! Ðthe€tractor€trailer€slowed,€causing€the€trailer€ð ðto€move€throughout€the€lane€of€traffic.ðð€€Due€to€whatÐ ¢#ò" ÐStarks€deemed€as€unsafe€passing,€he€initiated€a€stop€of€the€defendantððs€vehicle.Ð ‹$Û# ÐÐ t%Ä $ ÐUsing€English,€Starks€first€questioned€the€driver,€Roberto€Reyes.€€The€officer€examinedÐ ]&­!% ÐReyesðð€Mexican€driverððs€license€and€believed€it€to€be€fake.€€Starks€ascertained€that€the€defendantsÐ F'–"& Ðwere€going€to€Huntingboro,€Indiana,€and€that€the€passenger,€Lopez,€was€the€owner€of€the€vehicle.€Ð /(#' ÐStarks€also€asked€Reyes€in€English,€ð ðCan€I€search€it?ðð€€Reyes€responded,€ð ðyeah.ðð€€Ð )h$( Ѐ€Ð *Q%) ÐOfficer€Starks€then€began€questioning€the€passenger,€Armando€Lopez.€€The€officer€attemptedÐ ê*:&* Ðto€inquire€in€Spanish€if€there€were€guns,€beer,€or€drugs€in€the€car,€to€which€Lopez€replied€in€theÐ Ó+#'+ Ðnegative.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Starks€then€asked€in€English,€ð ðCan€I€search€your€car?ðð€€Not€receiving€an€answer€otherÐ ° Ðthan€an€inaudible€word€and€ð ðunderstand,ðð€Starks€attempted€the€question€in€Spanish.€€LopezÐ ™é Ðresponded€by€saying,€ð ðyeah.ðð€€Starks€issued€Reyes€a€warning€ticket.€€Officer€Starks€admitted€thatÐ ‚Ò Ðhe€had€Spanish€language€consent€to€search€forms€in€his€vehicle€but€never€produced€them.€€He€statedÐ k» Ðthat€he€believed€that€he€already€had€valid€consent€and€that€the€defendants€might€not€sign€the€forms.Ð T¤ ÐÐ =  ÐOfficer€Mike€Guthrie,€another€uniformed€member€of€the€Highway€Interdiction€Team,€arrivedÐ & v Ðon€the€scene,€and€the€two€officers€began€a€search€of€the€vehicle.€€The€officers€detected€a€heavy€odorÐ  _ Ðof€cologne€and€what€they€believed€to€be€the€odor€of€burned€marijuana.€€A€bag€of€light„coloredÐ ø H Ðmaterial€was€found€under€the€passenger€seat.€€The€material€was€field€tested€and€proved€to€beÐ á 1  Ðmethamphetamine,€later€weighed€as€approximately€nineteen€ounces.€€The€only€offense€chargedÐ Ê   Ðagainst€the€defendants€was€possession€of€Schedule€II€for€resale.€€Ð ³  ÐÐ œì  ÐThe€codefendants€were€then€taken€to€the€Sumner€County€Jail€for€processing.€€The€officersÐ …Õ  Ðhad€made€no€attempt€to€contact€federal€immigration€officials;€however,€Agent€Robert€Kinghorn,€anÐ n¾  Ðimmigration€officer,€happened€to€be€at€the€Sumner€County€jail€and€issued€detainers€on€theÐ W§  Ðdefendants.€€Agent€Kinghorn€testified€that€he€or€another€agent€would€have€responded€to€the€sceneÐ @ Ðof€the€stop€had€a€request€been€made.€€Kinghorn€also€stated€that€his€office€had€four€agents€with€Ð )y Ðjurisdiction€over€forty€counties€and€that€they€respond€to€police€calls€as€they€can,€depending€onÐ b Ðpriorities.€€Officer€Guthrie€testified€that€he€had€never€had€an€immigration€officer€respond€to€hisÐ ûK Ðrequests€when€he€had€detained€suspected€illegal€aliens.Ð ä4 ÐÐ Í ÐJudith€Kenigson„Kristy€was€accepted€as€an€expert€interpreter€and€translator€of€the€SpanishÐ ¶ Ðlanguage.€€She€had€enhanced€the€audio€taken€from€Officer€Starkððs€videotape€of€the€questioning€ofÐ Ÿï Ðthe€defendants€at€the€stop€scene.€€A€transcription€of€the€dialogue€was€introduced€as€an€exhibit.€€Ms.Ð ˆØ ÐKenigson„Kristy€noted€many€repetitions€of€questions€that€indicated€misunderstandings.€€She€alsoÐ qÁ Ðstated€that€the€word€used€by€Officer€Starks€in€his€attempted€Spanish€for€ð ðsearchðð€was€meaninglessÐ Zª Ðin€Spanish.€€Ð C“ ÐÐ ,| ÐBoth€defendants€testified€through€an€interpreter.€€Roberto€Reyes€testified€that€he€was€drivingÐ e Ðthe€vehicle€with€the€permission€of€the€owner€and€codefendant,€Armando€Lopez.€€Reyes€completedÐ þN Ðnine€years€of€school€in€Mexico€and€can€read€Spanish.€€Reyes€stated€that€he€did€not€intend€to€giveÐ ç 7 Ðpermission€to€search€the€vehicle.€€He€said€that€he€thought€the€officer€was€referring€to€insurance€whenÐ Ð!   Ðthe€officer€asked€for€consent€to€search.€€He€stated€that€he€would€not€have€given€consent€had€heÐ ¹" ! Ðunderstood€the€officerððs€request.€€Reyes€admitted€that€he€had€since€learned€more€English€fromÐ ¢#ò" Ðexposure€to€the€language€in€the€approximately€four€months€he€had€spent€in€jail.€€He€further€admittedÐ ‹$Û# Ðthat€he€was€an€illegal€alien€and€did€not€possess€a€valid€license€to€drive€in€the€United€States.Ð t%Ä $ ÐÐ ]&­!% ÐArmando€Lopez€testified€that€he€was€eighteen€at€the€time€of€the€arrest.€€He€had€completedÐ F'–"& Ðnine€years€of€school€in€Mexico€and€can€read€Spanish,€but€not€English.€€He€stated€he€had€not€intendedÐ /(#' Ðto€consent€to€the€request€to€search.€€He€did€not€understand€the€English€word€ð ðsearchðð€nor€theÐ )h$( Ðofficerððs€attempted€use€of€Spanish€for€ð ðsearch.ðð€€As€to€the€latter,€Lopez€thought€the€officer€wasÐ ° Ðreferring€to€the€vehicle€registration.€€He€stated€that€he€was€nervous€and€was€answering€ð ðyesðð€to€everyÐ ™é Ðquestion.Ð ‚Ò ÐÐ k» ÐThe€trial€judge,€in€her€ruling,€found€first€that€Reyes,€the€codefendant€who€was€driving€withÐ T¤ Ðpermission€of€the€codefendant€owner,€had€standing€to€contest€the€search.€€Next,€she€characterizedÐ =  Ðthe€stop€itself€as€ð ðmarginalðð€but€stated,€ð ðI€could€get€by€that.ðð€€She€then€found€that€the€videotapeÐ & v Ðevidenced€a€lack€of€knowing€and€voluntary€consent€by€the€codefendants.€€She€buttressed€thisÐ  _ Ðconclusion€by€reference€to€the€availability€of€Spanish€language€forms€which€were€not€utilized€dueÐ ø H Ðto€the€officerððs€fear€of€a€refusal€to€sign.Ð á 1  ÐÐ Ê   ÐAs€stated€previously,€the€State€urges€us€to€review€by€a€strictly€òòde€novoóó€standard€on€theÐ ³  Ðauthority€of€òòBinetteóó,€33€S.W.3d€at€217.€€Therein,€the€holding€was€ð ð€when€trial€courtððs€findings€of€factÐ œì  Ðat€a€suppression€hearing€are€based€on€evidence€that€does€not€involve€issues€of€credibility,€aÐ …Õ  Ðreviewing€court€must€examine€the€record€òòde€novoóó€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.ðð€€InÐ n¾  Ðjustifying€this€stance,€the€State€contends€that€the€trial€judge€herein€made€no€findings€of€credibilityÐ W§  Ðbut€focused€solely€on€the€videotape€and€the€transcript€of€the€verbal€exchanges€between€the€officersÐ @ Ðand€the€codefendants.Ð )y ÐÐ b ÐOur€review€of€the€record€leads€us€to€a€contrary€conclusion€from€that€urged€by€the€State.€€WeÐ ûK Ðfeel€that€a€careful€reading€of€the€trial€judgeððs€findings€reflect€a€reliance€by€her€on€evidence€other€thanÐ ä4 Ðthe€videotape€and€transcript.€€In€òòBinetteóó,€the€only€evidence€presented€by€the€State€at€the€suppressionÐ Í Ðhearing€was€the€videotape€of€the€defendantððs€alleged€driving€errors.€€In€a€later€case,€the€òòOdomóóÐ ¶ Ðstandard€of€review€was€utilized€due€to€the€arresting€officerððs€testimony€being€presented€by€the€StateÐ Ÿï Ðin€addition€to€the€videotape.€€òòState€v.€Garciaóó,€123€S.W.3d€335,€343€(Tenn.€2003).€€In€the€instant€case,Ð ˆØ Ðin€addition€to€the€videotape,€the€State€presented€the€two€officers€at€the€arrest€scene€and€anÐ qÁ Ðimmigration€agent.€€The€defendants€and€an€expert€translator„interpreter€testified€for€the€defense.€€WeÐ Zª Ðbelieve€this€is€sufficient€in€itself€to€distinguish€the€òòBinetteóó€standard€of€review€and€to€review€underÐ C“ ÐòòOdomóó€instead.€€Moreover,€the€trial€courtððs€findings€indicate€that€issues€of€credibility€were€included.Ð ,| ÐCentral€to€this€would€have€been€the€ability€of€the€codefendants€to€understand€the€officersðð€attemptsÐ e Ðat€communication.Ð þN ÐÐ ç 7 ÐInitially€we€note€that€the€trial€judge€classified€the€grounds€for€the€vehicle€stop€as€ð ðmarginal.ðð€Ð Ð!   ÐThe€trial€judge€explicitly€expressed€her€belief€in€the€officerððs€description€of€the€traffic€violation,€aÐ ¹" ! Ðcredibility€judgment€in€itself.€€However,€the€description€of€the€stop€as€ð ðmarginalðð€indicates€a€strongÐ ¢#ò" Ðskepticism€of€the€officerððs€reliance€on€ð ðthe€driveðð€phenomenon€as€an€indication€of€criminal€activity.€Ð ‹$Û# ÐThe€traffic€violation€was€the€only€justification€for€the€stop.€€While€no€explicit€reference€was€madeÐ t%Ä $ Ðas€to€the€codefendantsðð€credibility,€it€is€equally€true€that€her€finding€agreed€with€their€contention€thatÐ ]&­!% Ðthey€did€not€understand€the€requests€in€English€or€Spanish€to€search€the€vehicle.€€It€would€beÐ F'–"& Ðdifficult,€if€not€impossible,€to€rationalize€the€finding€of€lack€of€knowing€and€voluntary€consent€if€theÐ /(#' Ðtrial€judge€rejected€the€codefendantsðð€testimony€in€this€regard.Ð )h$( ÐÐ *Q%) ÐThe€next€instance€deals€with€the€issue€of€inevitability€of€discovery€rather€than€consent€butÐ ê*:&* Ðserves€as€another€example€of€judgment€of€credibility.€€Agent€Kinghorn,€the€immigration€officer,Ð Ó+#'+ Ðtestified€without€reservation€that,€had€his€agency€been€contacted,€ð ðsomebody€would€have€respondedÐ ° Ðfrom€our€office.ðð€€The€trial€court€implicitly€rejected€this€testimony€by€saying€it€called€for€speculationÐ ™é Ðby€the€trial€court€to€find€that€a€response€would€have€been€made.€€Ð ‚Ò ÐÐ k» ÐFurthermore,€even€if€credibility€was€not€at€issue,€we€would€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€findingÐ T¤ Ðbased€on€a€purely€òòde€novoóó€review€of€the€videotape€and€transcript€of€the€verbal€exchange€betweenÐ =  Ðthe€officers€and€the€codefendants.Ð & v ÐÐ  _ ÐOur€review€of€the€video€and€transcript€confirms€the€lack€of€coherent€communication€betweenÐ ø H Ðthe€officers€and€the€codefendants.€€The€two€exhibits€contain€numerous€repetitions€and€non„Ð á 1  Ðresponsive€behavior€by€the€codefendants,€indicative€of€misunderstandings.€€During€the€questioningÐ Ê   Ðof€Reyes,€Officer€Starks€pointed€to€the€nearby€fast€traffic€in€warning;€however,€the€defendant€is€seenÐ ³  Ðstepping€toward€the€traffic.€€This€defendant€was€told€twice€to€raise€his€shirt€with€accompanying€handÐ œì  Ðgestures.€€Reyes€responded€by€pulling€down€his€pants.€€The€transcript€containing€the€testimony€ofÐ …Õ  Ðthe€expert€translator„interpreter€revealed€that€Officer€Starksðð€Spanish€word€for€ð ðsearchðð€is€eitherÐ n¾  Ðnon„existent€or€mispronounced.€€Based€on€these€glaring€examples€and€the€video€and€transcript€asÐ W§  Ða€whole,€we€would€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€consent€to€search€was€not€knowing€orÐ @ Ðvoluntary.Ð )y ÐÐ b ÐNext,€the€State€alleges€that€the€evidence€would€have€inevitably€been€discovered€and,Ð ûK Ðtherefore,€the€illegally€seized€evidence€is€admissible.€€òòSeeóó€òòNix€v.€Williamsóó,€467€U.S.€431,€444,€104Ð ä4 ÐS.€Ct.€2501,€2509,€81€L.€Ed.€2d€377€(1984);€òòState€v.€Cothranóó,€115€S.W.3d€513,€525€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð Í ÐApp.€2003).€Officer€Starks€testified€that€had€consent€to€search€been€withheld,€nevertheless,€on€hisÐ ¶ Ðsuspicion€of€the€codefendantsðð€illegal€alien€status,€they€would€have€been€detained.€€The€officer€saidÐ Ÿï Ðthat€he€would€have€then€held€the€codefendants€for€a€sufficient€time€to€summon€an€immigrationÐ ˆØ Ðofficer€to€investigate€their€alien€status.€€Upon€a€subsequent€arrest€on€an€illegal€alien€basis,€the€carÐ qÁ Ðwould€have€been€impounded€and€inventoried,€and€the€contraband€would€have€been€discovered.€Ð Zª ÐAgent€Kinghorn,€an€immigration€officer,€testified€that€he€would€have€responded€if€called.€€AgentÐ C“ ÐKinghorn€acknowledged€the€limited€resources€available€to€the€immigration€officers€€in€coveringÐ ,| Ðforty€counties€with€a€staff€of€four€individuals.€€Officer€Guthrie€testified€that€he€had€previously€madeÐ e Ðtwo€stops€in€which€at€least€fifteen€suspected€illegal€aliens€were€in€each€vehicle.€€His€calls€toÐ þN Ðimmigration€officials€in€those€instances€received€no€response€and€resulted€in€the€suspectsðð€release.€Ð ç 7 ÐSignificantly,€the€arresting€officers€in€this€case€never€inquired€as€to€the€codefendantsðð€status€asÐ Ð!   Ðaliens.Ð ¹" ! ÐÐ ¢#ò" ÐThe€trial€judge€rejected€the€contention€of€inevitable€discovery€by€saying€it€would€involveÐ ‹$Û# Ðspeculation€to€determine€that€the€immigration€officials€would€have€responded.€€ð ð[I]nevitableÐ t%Ä $ Ðdiscovery€involves€no€speculative€elements€but€focuses€on€demonstrated€historical€facts€capable€ofÐ ]&­!% Ðready€verification€or€impeachment€and€does€not€require€a€departure€from€the€usual€burden€of€proofÐ F'–"& Ðat€suppression€hearings.ðð€€òòNixóó,€467€U.S.€at€444,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2509.€€Implicit€in€the€trial€judgeððsÐ /(#' Ðfindings€concerning€this€contention€was€a€rejection€of€Agent€Kinghornððs€assertion€that€he€wouldÐ )h$( Ðhave€responded€if€called.€€This€finding€is€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion,€and€we€agree€that€AgentÐ *Q%) ÐKinghornððs€assertion€was€speculative€and€not€based€on€verifiable€historical€facts.Ð ê*:&* ÐÓ  ÓÐ Ó+#'+ ÐÓ XÓò òConclusionó óÐ ° ÐÓ XêTÓÓÉTÓÐ šê ÐBased€on€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€order€ofÐ ƒÓ Ðsuppression€as€to€both€codefendants.€€The€cause€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings.Ð l¼ ЀÌÐ > Ž ÐÐ ' w ÐÐ  ` ÐÐ ù I Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_____________________________________€Ð â 2  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€JOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€JUDGE