WPC os-E="uyLQf),iD=De:ұ)ᓧq#%SzWsXpb5li| ܤ~Ds|ԨH'm?Xۃ F~ )(49MoWt׵c II4_5яroʀ2^9A3:jÞgA鱙7_vl=/JCdOx/1,t4&݂ 0^dž'|vP9~ nN_%;Y,,Yxܤf/+)0Ʊ C̒TWr5+6~a%q4!1i=4%Z0hV ^}w߫qmD *Oi8GGnpcsvlWr@Jмԥ+{?0>:&1aw 4sb#\ %% UN+ 0y UN 0O ^ z,  wx 4|    g- mN 0 0DE 0 0 0= 0 0 0   1u 72***************b\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 1eddddddddddddd 0 B 0 D5u D- 0K AS"u 0; 0D A#HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular*GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   G1  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptJ13|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U*AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  (#$  0  *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   3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)- - 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(|G223$ !.8dd8         0  0 d(|3$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _   8XXdd8@hhzINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @gg$ATNASHVILLE#z #Ԉ #   September21,2004Session F XX #XX#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.HOWARD_LAVELLE_ԀTATEXX  ? @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforDavidsonCounty  9 @@No.2002B1018SteveDozier,Judge  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200302418CCAR3CDFiledDecember16,_2004_   AV) ` dE<]` A ^     X4XXXTheDefendant,Howard_Lavelle_ԀTate,waspulledoverbyaMetropolitanPoliceOfficerinNashville, V  Tennesseeforviolatingthenoiseordinance.TheofficeraskedtheDefendantforconsenttosearch ? theDefendantspersonandtheDefendantsvehicle.TheDefendantreplied whatevertoboth (x theserequests.TheofficerfoundscaleswithawhitepowderresidueintheDefendantsvehicle. a TheDefendantthenfledtheofficer.TheofficerandasecondofficercaughttheDefendantwhothen J toldtheofficersthattheycouldfindthedrugsinhispantsleg.Theofficersretrievedthedrugsand 3 placedtheDefendantunderarrest.TheDefendantfiledamotiontosuppresstheevidencefoundas  aresultofthe_warrantless_Ԁsearches.Thetrialcourtdeniedthismotion.TheDefendantpledguilty  topossessionofover.5gramsofcocaine,aClassBfelony,butreservedacertifiedquestion  concerningwhetherthe_warrantless_Ԁsearchesfellwithinanexceptiontothewarrantrequirement.  TheDefendantnowappealsonthebasisofthecertifiedquestion.Wefindthatthesearchesfell p withinanexceptiontothewarrantrequirementandaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. Y #XXXX4##XX#XX Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheTrialCourtisAffirmed. +{    #X# #XX.JerryL.Smith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidG.HayesandThomasT. N _Woodall_,JJ.,joined.  7  DwightE.Scott,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Howard_Lavelle_ԀTate. " " PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;JenniferL._Bledsoe_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; $$ VictorS.Johnson,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andPamelaAnderson,AssistantDistrictAttorney t% % General,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. ]&!& #XX #XX   `   @@OO& OPINION #XX#XX -(. _ԇ#XXh#  q4 @! @@!X4X q4FactualBackground    OnOctober14,2001at8:15p.m.,Officer_Shariff_Ԁ_Mallory_Ԁhadjustfinishedacallon  _Dickerson_ԀRoadinNashville,whenhesawavanpassinfrontofhimatanintersectionnear k _Dickerson_ԀRoad.Thevan,drivenbytheDefendant,wasinaresidentialneighborhoodandthe T volumeofthemusicinthevanwassoloudthatOfficer_Mallory_Ԁcouldhearitfrom150to200feet =  away.Officer_Mallory_ԀpulledovertheDefendant.Officer_Mallory_ԀtoldtheDefendanthewas & v pullinghimoverbecauseofthevolumeofhismusicandaskedfortheDefendantsdriverslicense  _ andregistration.Officer_Mallory_ԀreturnedtohispolicecarandranacheckoftheDefendants  H driverslicenseanddiscoveredthattheDefendanthadacoupleofdrugcharges,adrug  1  paraphernaliachargeandamisdemeanor_capias_Ԁthatwasnolongeroutstanding.Officer_Mallory_    thenproceededtogivetheDefendantametrocitationforviolationofanoiseordinance.While   Officer_Mallory_ԀwasspeakingwiththeDefendant,theofficernoticedthattheDefendantwasacting   verynervous.Officer_Mallory_ԀaskedtheDefendanttostepoutofthevanandtothebackofthe   officerspatrolcartosignthecitation. n    AftertheDefendantsignedthecitation,Officer_Mallory_ԀgavethecitationtotheDefendant. @ Officer_Mallory_ԀthenaskedtheDefendantifhehadanythingillegalonhim,suchasaknifeoragun. )y TheDefendantrepliedthathedidnot.Officer_Mallory_Ԁthenaskedforconsenttosearchthe b Defendantsperson.TheDefendantsaidyes.Officer_Mallory_Ԁdidapatdownsearchandfound K nothing.Officer_Mallory_ԀthenaskedforpermissiontosearchtheDefendantsvehicle.The 4 Defendantreplied, Whatever.Officer_Mallory_ԀthensearchedtheDefendantsvanandfounda  digitalscalewithawhitepowdersubstanceonit.Theofficerdidnothaveafieldtestkitandwas  unabletocompleteafieldtestofthewhitepowder.Officer_Mallory_ԀapproachedtheDefendantwith  thescalesandtoldtheDefendanttoturnaround.TheDefendantturnedaroundandthenranaway  fromtheofficer.Officer_Mallory_ԀhadbeenjoinedbyOfficerClareandtheyproceededtochasethe q Defendantuntiltheycaughthim.AftertheDefendantactivelyresistedarrest,theofficerssprayed Z theDefendantwithpepperspray.TheofficersthenhandcuffedtheDefendantandreturnedhimto C thepatrolcar.Atthattime,theDefendanttoldtheofficersthatthe dopewasinsidehispantsleg. ,| _TheofficersthenretrievedcocainefromtheDefendantsleftpantslegandplacedtheDefendant e underarrest. N   OnJune4,2002,theDefendantwasindictedforevadingarrest,resistingarrest,possession !   ofcocainewithintenttosell,andpossessionofdrugparaphernaliawithintenttopreparea " ! controlledsubstanceforsale.OnNovember15,2002,theDefendantfiledamotiontosuppressthe #" digitalscalesandthecocainefoundduringthesearchesoftheDefendantsvehicleandperson.On $# January8,2003,thetrialcourtfiledanorderdenyingtheDefendantsmotiontosuppress. t% $   ThreeoftheDefendantschargesweredismissed,andhepledguiltytopossessionover.5 F'"& gramsofcocaine,aClassBFelony.TheDefendantdidreserveanagreeduponcertifiedquestion /(#' oflawuponwhichtoappeal. )h$(   Thecertifiedquestionagreeduponbythetrialcourtandthepartiesis:Didthecourterror *:&* [sic]indenyingtheDefendantsrequesttosuppressthefruitsofthesearchofhisvehicleandperson +#'+ byapoliceofficeronOctober14,2001.TheDefendantallegedthatthesearcheswereconducted  withoutbenefitofasearchwarrantandcouldnotbesustainedunderanyoftheexceptionstothe  warrantrequirement.Withouttheevidenceseizedduringthesearches,theStatecouldnothave  continuedtheDefendantsprosecution. k   STANDARDOFREVIEW  =  %  Ourstandardofreviewforatrialcourtsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawonamotion  ` tosuppressevidenceissetforthinStatev.Odom,928S.W.2d18(Tenn.1996).Underthis  I standard, atrialcourtsfindingsoffactinasuppressionhearingwillbeupheldunlesstheevidence  2  preponderatesotherwise.Id.at23.Asiscustomary, theprevailingpartyinthetrialcourtis    affordedthestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceandallreasonableandlegitimateinferences   thatmaybedrawnfromthatevidence.Statev.Carter,16S.W.3d762,765(Tenn.2000)(quoting   Statev.Keith,978S.W.2d861,864(Tenn.1998)).Nevertheless,thisCourtreviewsdenovothe   trialcourtsapplicationofthelawtothefacts,withoutaccordinganypresumptionofcorrectness o  tothoseconclusions.SeeStatev.Crutcher,989S.W.2d295,299(Tenn.1999). X     ANALYSIS  *z c*  TheDefendantarguestwoissuesinhisbrief.HefirstarguesthattheStatefailedtocarry M itsburdenatthesuppressionhearingthattheDefendanthadviolatedanordinanceandthatthe 6 searchwasincidenttoavalidarrest.TheDefendantalsoarguesthatthestopoftheDefendant  exceededthescopeofitsinitialpurpose,andthefurtherdetentionoftheDefendantripenedintoan  illegalarrest.TheDefendantsappealisbasedsolelyonacertifiedquestionoflaw.Whenan  appealisbroughtbycertifiedquestionoflaw,noissuebeyondthescopeofthecertifiedquestion  maybeconsideredbythisCourt.Statev.Pendergrass,759S.W.2d647,650(Tenn.1988). s Therefore,theonlyquestionwemayaddressiswhetherthewarrantlesssearchesofboththe \ Defendantandhisvehiclecanbesustainedunderanyexceptiontothewarrantrequirement. E   Thetrialcourtmadethefollowingfindingsoffact: g  X X ` OfficerMallorytestifiedthathewasfinishingacallonDickersonRoadat  9 approximately8:15p.m.whenheobservedavanpassbywithloudmusicina !"  residentialneighborhood.Whenhepulledoverthedefendantsvehicle,Officer " ! Mallorynoticedthatthedefendantseemednervous.Theofficerpreparedametro #" citationforviolationofanoiseordinanceandaskedthedefendanttosteptotheback $# ofhisvehicletosignthecitation.Afterthedefendantsignedthecitation,Officer v% $ Malloryaskedthedefendantifhewasholdinganythingillegalonhisperson. _&!% Subsequently,OfficerMalloryaskedforconsenttosearchthedefendantsperson H'"& andthedefendantacquiesed.Theinitialsearchofthedefendantspersondidnot 1(#' revealanycontraband,andOfficerMalloryproceededtoseekconsentfromthe )j$( defendanttosearchhisvehicle.Thedefendantconsentedtothesearchofhis *S%) vehicle,andOfficerMallorytestifiedthissearchrevealeddigitalscalescontaining *<&* awhitepowderresidue.WhenOfficerMalloryconfrontedthedefendantwiththe +%'+ scales_andattemptedtograbthedefendantshandheimmediatelygavechase.  Officer_Mallory_Ԁapprehendedthedefendantafewblockslaterandthedefendanttold  Officer_Mallory_Ԁthathehadcontrabandinhispantleg.TheOfficerretrievedthe  cocaineandplacedthedefendantunderarrest. k  `  ` .... =   ` Thedefendantarguesthatheneverconsentedtotheofficerssearchofhis  _ personorvehicle.Specifically,thedefendanttestifiedthatheresponded whatever  H whenOfficer_Mallory_Ԁrequestedconsenttosearchthedefendantspersonand  1  vehicle.Theproofindicatedthatthedefendantreplied whatevertoeachrequest    tosearchhispersonandvehicle.Whenevidenceisseizedastheresultofa   _warrantless_Ԁsearchofavehicle,thestatemustestablishthatthesearchwasconducted   pursuanttooneoftheexceptionstothewarrantrequirement.Statev.Keith,978   S.W.2d861(Tenn.1998).Onesuchexceptionisasearchconductedpursuanttoan n  individualsconsent._Schneckloth_Ԁv._Bustamonte_,412U.S.218(1973).Thescope W  ofconsentisnotbasedonthesubjectiveintentionsoftheconsentingpartyorthe @ subjectiveinterpretationsofthesearchingofficer.Insteadthestandardisthatof )y objectionable[sic]reasonablenesswhatwouldatypicalreasonablepersonhave b understoodbytheexchangebetweentheofficerandthesuspect.Floridav._Jimeno_, K 500U.S.at251(1991).SeealsoStatev._Troxell_,78S.W.3d866(2002).Ifthe 4 defendantdidnotwanttoconsenttothesearch,anyreasonablepersonwouldhave  answered no.[sic]Applyingacommonsenseinterpretationtotheverbal  exchange,theCourtisoftheopinionthatthedefendantsresponsetotheofficers  requestforconsentwasadequatetoprovidetherequisiteconsentforthesearch.   ` .... Z  ` Thedefendantsfinalcontentionisthat[the]secondsearchofthedefendants ,| personwasconductedwithouttheauthorityofawarrant,anditwasnotconducted e pursuanttoanyofthesearchwarrantexceptions.Whenthedefendantfledfromthe N officersandwascapturedafewblocksaway,Officer_Mallory_Ԁconductedasecond  7 searchofthedefendantsperson.Notwithstandingtheofficersabilitytoconduct !   asearchincidenttoarrest,thedefendantvolunteeredthestatementtotheofficerthat " ! the dopewasinhispantleg.Thus,Officer_Mallory_Ԁwasproperinretrievingthis #" contrabandfromthedefendantsclothingandplacinghimunderarrest.TheCourt $# isoftheopiniontheissueregardingthesecondsearchofthedefendantspersonis t% $ devoidofmerit. ]&!%  X,/ X/  TheFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleI,Section7ofthe /(#' TennesseeConstitutionprotectindividualsfromunreasonablesearchesandseizuresbylaw )h$( enforcementofficers.Asearchconductedwithoutawarrantispresumptivelyunreasonableandat *Q%) asuppressionhearingregardingsuchasearchtheStatebearstheburdenofprovingthatthe *:&* _warrantless_Ԁsearchwasreasonable.Statev.Coulter,67S.W.3d3,41(Tenn._Crim_.App.2001).This +#'+ meansthattheStatemustprovethatthe_warrantless_Ԁsearchorseizurewasconductedpursuanttoone  ofthenarrowlydefinedexceptionstothewarrantrequirement.Statev._Binette_,33S.W.3d215,218  (Tenn.2000).Oneexceptiontothewarrantrequirementforavalidsearchisthatanindividualgives  consenttothe_warrantless_Ԁsearch._Schneckloth_Ԁv._Bustamonte_,412U.S.218,248(1973).The k consentmusthowever,be unequivocal,specific,intelligentlygivenanduncontaminatedbyduress T orcoercion.Statev.Brown,836S.W.2d530,547(Tenn.1992).Thestandardis thatof =  objectivereasonableness!whatwouldthetypicalreasonablepersonhaveunderstoodbythe & v exchangebetweentheofficerandthesuspect.Statev._Troxell_,78S.W.3d866,872(Tenn.2002)  _ (quotingFloridav._Jimeno_,500U.S.248,251(1991)).  H   Asstatedabove,ourstandardofreviewrequiresthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthe    trialcourtsfindingsoffactinthiscase.Whenapplyinganobjectivereasonablenessstandardtothe   exchangebetweenOfficer_Mallory_ԀandtheDefendant,itisclearthattheDefendantconsentedtothe   searches.     TheDefendantreplied whatevertotheofficersrequestforconsenttosearchboththe W  DefendantspersonandtheDefendantsvehicle.Asthetrialcourtstated,areasonablepersonwould @ haveexpectedtheDefendanttounequivocallystatehisoppositiontoasearch.TheDefendants )y replyof whateverwouldleadareasonablepersontoconcludethattheDefendanthadnoobjection b tothesearches.Thetrialcourtsapplicationofthelawtothisfactualscenarioiscorrect. K   ThesecondsearchoftheDefendantspersonclearlywasconductedpursuanttoconsentby  theDefendant.TheofficerscaughttheDefendant,andhetoldtheofficerswheretheycouldfind  thecocaineonhisperson.TheDefendantvolunteeredthisinformation.Clearlythisisconsentto  asearch.Thisevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingsoffact,andthetrial  courtcorrectlyappliedthelawtothesefacts. q    `   CONCLUSION  ,| 9Q  Becauseweconcludethattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourts O findingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdenialoftheDefendantsmotion  8 tosuppress,andaccordingly,thejudgmentofconviction.#XXXX4#X4XXX !!  #XXXX4R#   `     h     ___________________________________ #"    `     h     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE