ÿWPCÀ µspVaàÙ_×·ø~'GbvÙãféçnr·ØC[3; Ë 'CK‰òôá½âÈu‚¶HÉ–1` ÝÌÐú¦Ñ¿Óe‹í‰,‹!ìü–¾wN§'M7vAÚd+163[u¨å {·öž\vQ|ä“þÃE×$6C¯Šé ä}ü¸Æ…=£ë(º>4eP|Y(+?æðÔ8©"Ë89&}KI\gFTâB6Ó¤X}XB*ÄY•6-Ê)§ôä;V+øèF& ù€m“»lr[&ìÓqˆ`W¨tTíà ÏÊ’Y$8ÕÈUÂè[–™2ÌFíã„¶ÙmÆ:g¬j±Õ9ŠÈ¿½eúÎæÐƒ{+Ñ¡)'ñÅ´Üs1H멗ß$•ço‰l/m¤"“µ(²Š*ÅZÔ|àS¢a ¹ÀÀåêAû‡:íÉ+àè3ãÐQkdÓ©áøCôå!x¿èm»F²:®”^D‘¦ä¡ˆÛkèInmiõ4t]qÑ Kc’‘VwóÔGž›9‹œ~è#3 ÓilÄgX€œ-/xh8êTÑ#qüå‰h—ñ8‡]sÎ ÉhÜ12Ì4‡KßÚxÄÙ¶ŸAëdóË1òGøb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ë N±±±E³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³bµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ 0ë½½½½ B¨¨ 0¤Å D3i D-œ 0KÉÉ ASÆg 0¤- 0DÑ A«˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»y³‡+ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~'pú° ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2½v$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€JÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôãÍò»»Ô d(|3G$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€JÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€JÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€JÕ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼JÕ»»»ÔÑ8€©XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îUôJÕÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼JÕ»îîUô #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€January€18,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡X©X»¼JÕÔÌò òÔ#†¼JÕ»XX©!#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€TIMOTHY€L.€ROBERTSONòòóóÔ‡X©X»¼JÕÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„B„1027€€€€€€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„01235„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€December€7,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Timothy€L.€Robertson,€was€indicted€on€two€counts€of€unlawful€possession€of€aÐ xÈ  Ðcontrolled€substance€with€intent€to€sell;€one€count€of€felony€possession€of€a€weapon;€and€one€countÐ d´ Ðof€driving€on€a€revoked€or€suspended€license.€€Following€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€his€motion€toÐ P  Ðsuppress,€he€pled€guilty€to€one€count€of€possession€of€more€than€.5€grams€of€cocaine€with€the€intentÐ <Œ Ðto€resell,€a€Class€B€felony,€and€one€count€of€felony€possession€of€a€weapon,€a€Class€E€felony.€€InÐ (x Ðaccordance€with€the€terms€of€his€plea€bargain€agreement,€the€remaining€counts€of€the€indictmentÐ d Ðwere€dismissed.€€Pursuant€to€Rule€37(b)(2)(1)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€theÐ P Ðdefendant€reserved€the€right€to€appeal€as€a€dispositive€question€of€law€the€issue€of€whether€hisÐ ì< Ðcustodial€arrest€and€the€subsequent€search€of€his€vehicle€violated€the€Fourth€Amendment€of€theÐ Ø( ÐUnited€States€Constitution,€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€and€Tennessee€CodeÐ Ä ÐAnnotated€Section€40„7„118(b)(1)(c).€€We€conclude€that€the€officers€were€required€to€make€aÐ ° Ðcustodial€arrest€of€the€defendant€to€prevent€his€continued€violation€of€the€driverððs€license€law,€andÐ œì Ðthat€the€subsequent€search€of€his€vehicle€was€valid€as€incident€to€that€arrest.€€Accordingly,€we€affirmÐ ˆØ Ðthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€Ð tÄ ÐÔ#†¼JÕ»XX©#ÔÔ‡X©X»¼JÕÔÓÍÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ L œ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼JÕ»àX©4 #ÔÔ‡X©X.¼JÕÔJerry€L.€Smith,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòThomas€T.€Woodallóó€and€òòRobertÐ $"t! ÐW.€Wedemeyer,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð #`" ÐÌNicholas€D.€Hare,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Timothy€L.€Robertson.Ð è$8 $ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Mark€A.€Fulks,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð À&"& ÐVictor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Erik€R.€Herbert,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ ¬'ü"' ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÓÑ ÓÌÌÌÌÐ 4-„(-ýG Їà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼JÕ»XX© #ÔÔ‡X©X»¼JÕÔÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼JÕ»XX©Ð#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X©X»¼JÕÔà0  àò òà@!ì(#(#àFactual€BackgroundˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌÔ_Ôó óÔ_Ôà  àAt€about€5:00€p.m.€on€October€16,€1998,€Metropolitan€Nashville€Police€Officer€DavidÐ `° ÐGoodwin€stopped€the€defendant€for€running€a€stop€sign€at€Rockwood€Drive€and€Rockwood€PlaceÐ L œ Ðin€Nashville.€€Officer€John€Vincent,€driving€in€a€separate€patrol€car,€arrived€on€the€scene€in€time€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðsee€the€defendant€get€out€of€his€car€and€walk€to€the€rear€of€his€vehicle.€€The€defendant€had€noÐ $ t Ðidentification€but€provided€the€officers€his€name,€date€of€birth,€and€social€security€number.€€ByÐ  ` Ðrunning€his€name€and€date€of€birth€through€dispatch,€Officer€Vincent€learned€that€the€defendantððsÐ ü L  Ðdriverððs€license€had€been€revoked.€€The€officers€then€placed€him€under€custodial€arrest€for€drivingÐ è 8  Ðon€a€revoked€license,€handcuffed€him€and€put€him€in€the€rear€of€a€patrol€car.€€Upon€opening€theÐ Ô$  Ðdriverððs€door€of€the€defendantððs€car,€Officer€Vincent€discovered€a€loaded€clip€of€nine„millimeterÐ À  Ðammunition€between€the€driverððs€seat€and€the€door€jam.€€The€officersðð€continued€search€uncovered,Ð ¬ü  Ðamong€other€items:€€a€nine„millimeter€handgun€and€approximately€ten€grams€of€crack€cocaineÐ ˜è  Ðunderneath€the€driverððs€seat;€eleven€pills€of€Alprazolam,€a€Schedule€IV€controlled€substance,€in€theÐ „Ô  Ðconsole;€and€the€butt€of€a€marijuana€cigarette€in€the€ashtray.€€The€officers€also€found€$2162€in€cashÐ pÀ Ðin€the€defendantððs€right€front€pocket.€€Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€Ð H˜ Ðà  àThe€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€all€evidence€resulting€from€the€stop.€€At€theÐ 4„ ÐFebruary€1,€2000,€suppression€hearing,€Officer€Vincent€testified€that€the€defendantððs€girlfriend€pulledÐ  p Ðup€in€her€car€as€he€was€beginning€his€search€of€the€defendantððs€vehicle,€at€about€the€time€that€heÐ  \ Ðopened€the€driverððs€door€to€the€defendantððs€car.€ò ò€ó óHe€said€that€they€were€following€standard€procedureÐ øH Ðof€inventorying€the€vehicle€prior€to€towing,€and€that€they€did€not€turn€the€vehicle€over€to€theÐ è8 Ðgirlfriend€because€she€was€in€a€separate€car€and€had€small€children€with€her.€€Officer€VincentÐ Ô$ Ðexplained€that€they€placed€the€defendant€under€custodial€arrest€because€he€had€no€validÐ À Ðidentification,€and€his€license€came€back€as€revoked.€€He€said€that€it€was€departmental€policy€to€placeÐ ¬ü Ðanyone€under€custodial€arrest€whose€license€comes€back€as€revoked€or€suspended,€and€who€cannotÐ ˜è Ðproduce€a€proper€state€identification.€€Officer€Goodwin€testified€that€the€defendant€was€placed€underÐ „Ô Ðcustodial€arrest€when€they€learned€that€he€did€not€have€a€driverððs€license.€€He€said€that€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendantððs€girlfriend€arrived€at€the€scene€at€ð ðabout€the€time€he€was€placed€in€custody.ðð€ò òó óTheÐ \ ¬ Ðdefendantððs€girlfriend,€Latika€Morton,€testified€that€she€arrived€at€the€scene€before€the€defendant€wasÐ H!˜ Ðhandcuffed€while€the€police€were€still€questioning€him€about€his€identification.€€€Ð 4"„  ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.€Ð  $\" ÐThe€court€found€that€the€officers€appropriately€placed€the€defendant€under€custodial€arrest€based€onÐ ø$H # Ðthe€fact€that€he€was€driving€on€a€revoked€license€and€was€unable€to€produce€valid€identification,€andÐ ä%4!$ Ðthat€their€search€of€the€passenger€compartment€of€his€vehicle€was€permissible€as€incident€to€the€validÐ Ð& "% Ðarrest€and€as€part€of€an€inventory€search€prior€to€towing.€ò òó óÐ ¼' #& ÐÌà  àOn€February€23,€2000,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€reconsider€the€trial€courtððs€decision,Ð ”)ä$( Ðciting€òòState€v.€Walkeróó,€12€S.W.3d€460€(Tenn.€2000),€to€argue€that€the€officers€had€no€objectivelyÐ €*Ð%) Ðreasonable€basis€to€doubt€his€identification€information€and,€thus,€no€lawful€grounds€to€place€himÐ l+¼&* Ðunder€custodial€arrest€for€the€misdemeanor€offense€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€€On€March€23,Ð ° Ð2000,€the€trial€court€entered€a€written€order€denying€the€defendantððs€motion.€€The€court€firstÐ œì Ðdistinguished€òòWalkeróó€from€the€instant€case€by€noting€that€the€identification€information€provided€byÐ ˆØ ÐWalker,€unlikeòòóó€that€provided€by€the€defendant€in€the€case€at€bar,€came€back€as€belonging€to€a€validÐ tÄ Ðdriverððs€license.òòóó€€The€court€then€found€that€the€defendant€was€lawfully€placed€under€custodial€arrestÐ `° Ðbased€on€the€subsection€of€the€cite€and€release€statute€providing€for€custodial€arrest€for€aÐ L œ Ðmisdemeanor€offense€when€ð ð[t]here€is€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€the€offense€would€continue€orÐ 8 ˆ Ðresume,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„7„118(c)(2)(1997),€and€that€the€subsequent€search€of€the€vehicle€wasÐ $ t Ðpermissible€as€incident€to€the€custodial€arrest,€and€as€a€valid€inventory€search€in€preparation€for€theÐ  ` Ðvehicle€to€be€towed.€€The€court€also€found€that€the€officersðð€discovery€of€the€ammunition€clip€createdÐ ü L  Ðprobable€cause€to€justify€a€further€search€of€the€vehicle.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€subsequently€pled€guilty€to€the€possession€of€more€than€.5€grams€of€cocaineÐ À  Ðwith€the€intent€to€resell€and€felony€possession€of€a€weapon.€€With€the€permission€of€the€trial€courtÐ ¬ü  Ðand€the€State,€he€reserved€the€following€question€of€law,€which€he€states€as€follows:€€ð ðWhether€theÐ ˜è  Ðcustodial€arrest€of€the€defendant€and€subsequent€search€of€the€vehicle€he€was€driving€conformed€withÐ „Ô  Ðthe€Fourth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution,€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€TennesseeÐ pÀ ÐConstitution,€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„7„118(b)(1)(c).ðð€€ò òó óÐ \¬ ЀÌà@žž!ìàò òStandard€of€ReviewˆÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àó óWe€review€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€under€the€followingÐ  \ Ðwell„established€standard€of€review:Ð øH ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€party€prevailing€in€the€trial€court€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÐ Ð  Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing€asÐ ¼  Ðwell€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawnÐ ¨ø Ðfrom€that€evidence.€€So€long€as€the€greater€weight€of€the€evidenceÐ ”ä Ðsupports€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€those€findings€shall€be€upheld.€€InÐ €Ð Ðother€words,€a€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€a€suppression€hearingÐ l¼ Ðwill€be€upheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌÔ_ÔòòStateÔ_Ô€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€trial€courtððs€application€of€law€to€the€facts,Ð 0"€  Ðhowever,€is€a€question€of€law,€which€is€reviewed€òòdeóó€òònovoóó.€€òòState€v.€Yearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629Ð #l! Ð(Tenn.€1997).òòóóÐ $X" ÐÌà@àà%ìàò òSuppressionˆÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àó óOn€appeal€to€this€court,€the€defendant€cites€òòWalkeróó€and€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€SectionÐ ¸'#& Ð40„7„118(b)(1)€and€(c)(3)€to€argue€that€the€officers€could€not€lawfully€place€him€under€custodialÐ ¤(ô#' Ðarrest€based€solely€on€the€fact€that€he€was€unable€to€produce€photographic€identification,€and€thatÐ )à$( Ðtheir€subsequent€search€of€his€car€therefore€violated€the€protections€against€unreasonable€search€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðseizure€afforded€by€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€He€also€argues€that€there€is€noÐ h+¸&* Ðmerit€to€the€Stateððs€contention€that€a€custodial€arrest€was€necessary€to€prevent€a€continuation€of€theÐ ° Ðoffense,€because€his€girlfriend€could€have€driven€him€from€the€scene€in€her€car.€€The€State€argues€thatÐ œì Ðthe€cite€and€release€statute€provided€the€officers€with€discretion€to€place€the€defendant€underÐ ˆØ Ðcustodial€arrest€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€and€that€the€officers€took€him€into€custody€notÐ tÄ Ðbecause€of€his€failure€to€produce€picture€identification,€but€because€of€the€likelihood€that€the€offenseÐ `° Ðwould€continue.€€The€State€therefore€contends€that€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€motion€toÐ L œ Ðsuppress€because€the€search€of€the€passenger€compartment€of€the€defendantððs€vehicle€was€conductedÐ 8 ˆ Ðincident€to€a€valid€arrest.€òòóó€We€agree€with€the€State.€ò òÐ $ t ÐÌà  àó óTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„7„118,€the€ð ðcite€and€releaseðð€statute,€provides€that€inÐ ü L  Ðthe€case€of€most€misdemeanors,€an€officer€must€issue€a€citation€instead€of€effectuating€a€custodialÐ è 8  Ðarrest.€€òòSeeóó€òòóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„7„118(b)(1)€(1997).€€However,€for€some€misdemeanors,€includingÐ Ô$  Ðdriving€on€a€revoked€or€suspended€license,€an€officer€has€the€discretion€to€either€issue€a€citation€orÐ À  Ðplace€the€individual€who€committed€the€offense€under€custodial€arrest.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€(b)(3)(C);€òòsee€alsoóóÐ ¬ü  ÐòòState€v.€John€Earl€Thompsonóó,€No.€01C01„9308„CC„00259,€1994€WL€179778,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ˜è  ÐApp.€at€Nashville,€Ô_ÔMayÔ_Ô€12,€1994)€(ð ðCitations€are€discretionary€with€the€officer€for€persons€arrestedÐ „Ô  Ðfor€.€.€.€revoked€or€suspended€driverððs€license€infractions[.]ðð).€€Moreover,€the€statute€provides€thatÐ pÀ Ðif€one€of€eight€conditions€exists,€ð ðno€citation€shall€be€issued.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„7„118òòóó(c)(1)„Ð \¬ Ð(8).òòóó€€òòóóThe€conditions€for€which€an€officer€must€place€an€individual€under€custodial€arrest€includeÐ H˜ Ðwhen€ð ð[t]here€is€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€the€offense€would€continue€or€resume,ðð€òòid.óó€at€(c)(2),€andÐ 4„ Ðwhen€ð ð[t]he€person€arrested€cannot€or€will€not€offer€satisfactory€evidence€of€identification[.]ðð€€òòId.óóÐ  p Ðat€(c)(3).€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€relies€on€òòWalkeróó€as€support€for€his€argument€that€the€officers€should€not€haveÐ ä4 Ðplaced€him€under€custodial€arrest.€€We€agree€with€the€State€and€the€trial€court€that€òòWalkeróó€is€readilyÐ Ð  Ðdistinguishable€from€the€case€at€bar.€€The€sole€issue€in€òòWalkeróó€was€what€constitutes€ð ðsatisfactoryÐ ¼  Ðevidence€of€identificationðð€for€the€purposes€of€subsection€(c)(3)€of€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ ¨ø ÐSection€40„7„118.€€In€that€case,€a€police€officer€approached€a€defendant€whose€car€radio€was€playingÐ ”ä Ðat€an€excessive€volume,€informed€him€that€he€would€be€issued€a€citation€for€violating€the€cityððs€noiseÐ €Ð Ðordinance,€and€asked€to€see€his€driverððs€license€and€vehicle€registration.€€òòWalkeróó,€12€S.W.3d€at€462„Ð l¼ Ð63.€€The€defendant,€who€had€left€his€driverððs€license€at€his€motherððs€house,€provided€the€officer€withÐ X ¨ Ðhis€name,€date€of€birth,€and€driverððs€license€number,€all€of€which€were€verified€by€the€officerððsÐ D!” Ðdispatcher€as€belonging€to€a€valid€license.€€òòId.óó€at€463.€€Nonetheless,€the€officer€decided€to€take€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant€into€physical€custody€because€he€did€not€have€his€driverððs€license€or€other€identificationÐ #l! Ðwith€him.€€When€the€officer€searched€the€defendant€incident€to€that€arrest,€he€found€marijuana€andÐ $X" Ða€substance€containing€cocaine.€€òòId.óó€€Adopting€an€ð ðobjectively€reasonableðð€test€for€what€constitutesÐ ô$D # Ðsatisfactory€evidence€of€identification,€our€supreme€court€held€that€an€officer€must€have€a€ð ðððspecificÐ à%0!$ Ðarticulable€reason€to€doubt€that€the€cited€person€has€accurately€identified€himself€[or€herself]€beforeÐ Ì&"% Ðtaking€him€[or€her]€into€custody.ðððð€€òòId.óó€at€465€(quoting€òòPeople€v.€Monroeóó,€12€Cal.€App.€4th€1174,€16Ð ¸'#& ÐCal.€Rptr.€2d€267,€286€(1993)€(Smith,€J.,€dissenting)).€ò ò€ó óBecause€the€State€failed€to€show€an€objectiveÐ ¤(ô#' Ðreason€for€the€officer€to€doubt€the€reliability€of€the€identification€information€provided€by€theÐ ”)ä$( Ðdefendant,€the€court€concluded€that€the€custodial€arrest€was€unlawful,€and€that€the€evidence€seizedÐ €*Ð%) Ðas€a€result€of€that€arrest€should€have€been€suppressed.€€òòId.óó€at€468.ò òÐ l+¼&* Їà  àó óThe€evidence€here,€by€contrast,€reveals€that€the€defendant€was€placed€under€custodial€arrestÐ ° Ðnot€because€the€officers€doubted€his€identification€information,€but€because€the€information€heÐ œì Ðprovided€revealed€that€he€was€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€and€there€was€a€reasonable€likelihoodÐ ˆØ Ðthat€the€offense€would€continue.€€In€such€a€situation,€custodial€arrest€is€not€merely€within€theÐ tÄ Ðofficerððs€discretion,€but€is€required€under€subsection€(c)(2)€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€SectionÐ `° Ð40„7„118.€òòóó€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„7„118(c)(2).€€As€support€for€his€claim€that€he€was€placed€underÐ L œ Ðcustodial€arrest€because€of€his€failure€to€provide€photographic€identification,€the€defendant€cites€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðportion€of€Officer€Vincentððs€testimony€in€which€he€stated€that€the€officers€arrested€the€defendantÐ $ t Ðbecause€ð ð[t]here€was€no€way€to€verify€his€information€without€a€picture€I.D.€€He€had€no€kind€ofÐ  ` Ðpicture€I.D.ðð€€€ò òó óElsewhere€in€his€testimony,€however,€Officer€Vincent€indicated€that€it€was€theÐ ü L  Ðcombination€of€the€defendantððs€revoked€driverððs€license€status€and€lack€of€photographicÐ è 8  Ðidentification€that€caused€the€officers€to€place€him€under€custodial€arrest.€€Furthermore,€OfficerÐ Ô$  ÐVincentððs€subjective€belief€about€the€reason€for€the€custodial€arrest€is€not€controlling.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð À  ÐVineyardóó,€958€S.W.2d€730,€734€(Tenn.€1997)€(citing€òòWhren€v.€United€Statesóó,€517€U.S.€806,€812,€116Ð ¬ü  ÐS.€Ct.€1769,€1774,€135€L.€Ed.€2d€89€(1996)).ò òó ó€€Officer€Goodwin€testified€at€the€suppression€hearingÐ ˜è  Ðthat€he€did€òònotóó€place€the€defendant€under€custodial€arrest€when€he€first€learned€that€he€had€noÐ „Ô  Ðphotographic€identification.€€Instead,€he€asked€the€defendant€to€step€away€from€the€back€of€hisÐ pÀ Ðvehicle€while€Officer€Vincent€ran€the€information€the€defendant€provided€through€dispatch.€€OnlyÐ \¬ Ðafter€they€learned€that€the€status€of€the€defendantððs€license€was€revoked€was€he€placed€in€custody.€ò òó óÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€there€was€no€reasonable€likelihood€that€he€would€have€continuedÐ  p Ðto€drive€on€a€revoked€license€because€his€girlfriend€was€present€at€the€time€of€his€arrest,€and€couldÐ  \ Ðhave€driven€him€from€the€scene€in€her€automobile.€€€Based€on€the€trial€courtððs€language€that€€ð ð[a]tÐ øH Ðsome€point€during€the€stop,€Ms.€Latika€Morton€.€.€.€arrived€on€the€scene,ðð€the€defendant€asserts€thatÐ ä4 Ðthe€court€€ð ðthus€did€not€find€that€[he]€was€in€custodyðð€when€his€girlfriend€arrived€at€the€scene,€andÐ Ð  Ðargues€that€there€was€therefore€no€basis€for€the€officers€to€take€him€into€custodial€arrest€in€order€toÐ ¼  Ðprevent€a€continued€offense.€€ò òó óÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àWe€disagree.€€The€trial€courtððs€statement€that€Morton€arrived€ð ð[a]t€some€point€during€theÐ €Ð Ðstopðð€does€not,€as€the€defendant€implies,€equate€to€a€finding€that€he€was€òònotóó€in€custody€when€sheÐ l¼ Ðarrived€at€the€scene.€€Although€Morton€testified€that€she€arrived€before€the€defendant€was€arrested,Ð X ¨ Ðboth€officersðð€testimonies€indicated€that€she€appeared€either€simultaneously€with€the€custodial€arrest,Ð D!” Ðor€òòafteróó€the€defendant€had€already€been€placed€in€handcuffs€and€inside€the€patrol€car.€€Officer€VincentÐ 0"€  Ðtestified€that€Morton€arrived€as€he€was€beginning€his€search€of€the€defendantððs€car,€and€OfficerÐ #l! ÐGoodwin€said€that€she€arrived€ð ðat€about€the€timeðð€that€the€defendant€was€placed€in€custody.€OfficerÐ $X" ÐVincent€further€testified€that€Morton€did€not€at€first€identify€herself€as€the€defendantððs€girlfriend.€€Ð ô$D # ÐParticularly€noteworthy€is€the€fact€that€she€was€driving€a€separate€car.€€€Thus,€even€had€she€arrivedÐ à%0!$ Ðbefore€the€defendant€was€placed€under€custodial€arrest,€the€officers€would€have€been€justified€inÐ Ì&"% Ðconcluding€that€there€was€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€the€defendant€would€continue€driving€his€ownÐ ¸'#& Ðcar€if€they€merely€issued€him€a€citation.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€officers€were€authorized€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðplace€the€defendant€under€custodial€arrest€to€prevent€a€continuation€of€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð )à$( ÐJeffrey€L.€Hammonsóó,€No.€M1999„00756„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€924633€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ |*Ì%) ÐNashville,€June€30,€2000)òòóó€(concluding€that€officer€was€authorized€to€place€defendant€whose€licenseÐ h+¸&* Ðwas€revoked€under€custodial€arrest€to€prevent€further€violation),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Feb.Ð ° Ð20,€2001);€òòState€v.€Juan€E.€McAdamsóó,€No.€01C01„9704„CR„00140,€1998€WL€305500,€at€*2€(Tenn.Ð œì ÐÔ_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Nashville,€Ô_ÔJuneÔ_Ô€11,€1998),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€Mar.€1,€1999)€(concludingÐ ˆØ Ðthat€custodial€arrest€is€ð ðappropriateðð€when€officer€discovers€defendant€is€driving€on€a€revoked€licenseÐ tÄ Ðin€order€to€prevent€continuation€of€the€offense).€Ð `° ÐÌà  àò òó óHaving€placed€the€defendant€under€custodial€arrest,€the€officers€were€then€authorized€to€makeÐ 8 ˆ Ða€contemporaneous€search€of€the€passenger€compartment€of€his€vehicle€incident€to€that€arrest.€€òòSeeóóÐ $ t ÐòòNew€York€v.€Beltonóó,€453€U.S.€454,€460,€101€S.€Ct.€2860,€2864,€69€L.€Ed.€2d€768€(1981);€òòState€v.Ð  ` ÐWatkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€293,€295„96€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€fact€that€the€defendant€was€handcuffed€andÐ ü L  Ðseated€in€the€rear€of€the€patrol€car€at€the€time€does€not€destroy€the€contemporaneous€nature€of€theÐ è 8  Ðsearch.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Whiteóó,€871€F.2d€41,€44€(6th€Cir.€1989);€òòWatkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€at€296.€€WeÐ Ô$  Ðtherefore€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€this€case€was€properly€admissible€as€the€result€of€a€searchÐ À  Ðconducted€incident€to€a€valid€custodial€arrest.€€Because€the€evidence€was€discovered€within€theÐ ¬ü  Ðpassenger€compartment,€we€need€not€determine€whether,€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€theÐ ˜è  Ðofficers€were€authorized€to€conduct€an€inventory€search€of€the€vehicle.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ò òÐ \¬ Ðó óÌÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE