ÿWPCI …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe² BÃv~àvÓ^ D31 0@d AO¤Æó 0D¹ D/ý B,˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ŠD‹HŒDDŽ‘D’ce“Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|xœ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌNovember€19,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€åKXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òœÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMARCH€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)€€€€€€€C.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9604„CC„00171à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àAppellant,ò òà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€HON.€CORNELIA€A.€CLARK,€€€€€ó óÌò òDAVID€C.€VOLZ,à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€JUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà à)ó ó€€€€€€€Ìà àà àAppellee.à àà àò òà à)€€€€€€€(RULE€9€APPEAL€BY€STATE)€Ìó óÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:ÌÌò òLEE€OFMANà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó ó317€Main€Street,€Suite€203à àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌFranklin,€TN€37064€Ìà àà àà àà àò òà àà àKAREN€M.€YACUZZO€Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJOSEPH€D.€BAUGH,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òDEREK€K.€SMITH€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliamson€County€Courthouse,€Ste.€G„6Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€937€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TN€37065„0937ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€ °ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àà àThe€State€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€trial€courtððs€order€granting€theÏDefendantððs€motion€to€suppress€evidence.€€In€this€felony€possession€ofÏmarijuana€case,€the€action€of€the€trial€court€had€the€substantive€effect€ofÏdismissing€the€indictment€against€Defendant.€€The€issue€on€appeal€is€whetherÏor€not€the€trial€court€erred€by€granting€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€theÏevidence.€€We€agree€with€the€State€and€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€order€grantingÏthe€motion€to€suppress€and€remand€this€case€for€further€proceedings.ÌÌà àà àFollowing€the€evidentiary€hearing€in€which€only€the€primary€arrestingÏofficer€and€the€Defendant€testified,€the€trial€court€took€the€matter€underÏadvisement€and€subsequently€entered€an€order€granting€the€motion€to€suppress,Ïalong€with€a€detailed€memorandum€of€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€our€analysis€of€this€case,€we€are€mindful€of€the€standard€ofÏreview€in€suppression€cases€recently€set€forth€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.ÏOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996)€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€party€prevailing€in€the€trial€court€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€suppressionÏhearing€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€thatÏmay€be€drawn€from€that€evidence.€€So€long€as€the€greater€weightÍof€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€those€findingsÏshall€be€upheld.€€In€other€words,€a€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€aÏsuppression€hearing€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€otherwise.€€ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€23.ÌÓÓà àà àA€review€of€the€evidentiary€hearing€and€the€trial€courtððsÏmemorandum€shows€the€facts€in€this€case€are€as€follows.€€On€July€26,€1995,ÏDetective€Allen€Hale€and€Officer€Don€Zelaya€of€the€Franklin€Police€DepartmentÏstopped€the€Defendant€and€his€co„defendant,€David€Vandewater,€in€theirÏvehicle€located€at€the€Majik€Market€parking€lot€off€Hillsboro€Road€in€Franklin.€€TheÏofficers€were€acting€on€information€given€to€Hale€by€a€confidential€informantÏwithin€48€hours€prior€to€the€stop.€€The€informant€advised€Hale€that€two€whiteÏmales,€both€with€the€first€name€David,€would€be€in€a€certain„described€vehicle€atÏa€certain€period€of€time€in€the€area€of€the€Majik€Market€for€the€purpose€of€meetingÏothers€regarding€transactions€to€sell€marijuana.€€The€informant€offered€detailedÏphysical€descriptions€of€the€two€men,€including€their€hair€color€and€the€fact€thatÏthey€both€had€ponytails.€€The€informant€told€Hale€the€marijuana€was€located€inÏthe€vehicle€and€that€he€(informant)€had€seen€the€individuals€with€marijuanaÏwithin€the€last€48€hours.€€The€informant€also€advised€Hale€that€the€DefendantððsÏvehicle€would€have€a€Virginia€license€plate.€€ÌÌà àà àHale€testified€that€at€the€time€he€received€this€information€from€theÏconfidential€informant,€he€believed€the€informant€to€be€reliable€and€to€have€anÍadequate€basis€of€knowledge€concerning€the€Defendant.€€Hale€œhad€had›Ïconversations€with€the€informant€on€several€prior€occasions€wherein€theÏinformant€had€given€Hale€names€of€individuals€dealing€in€drugs,€and€the€officerÏhad€been€able€to€independently€corroborate€this€information.€€On€at€least€oneÏprior€occasion,€the€informant€had€told€Hale€about€certain€persons€possessingÏdrugs€in€a€particular€location€and€this€information€was€corroboratedÏindependently€by€Hale.€€Hale€further€specified€that€the€informant€had€given€himÏnames€of€at€least€a€dozen€individuals€involved€in€drug€activity€and€that€he€hadÏcorroborated€that€information.€€Hale,€who€had€been€involved€in€the€vice€unit€ofÏthe€police€department€for€a€considerable€period€of€time,€also€testified€that€theÏparking€lot€area€of€this€particular€Majik€Market€was€well€known€as€an€area€forÏtransactions€of€illegal€drugs€and/or€for€meetings€to€arrange€transactions€involvingÏdrugs.ÌÌà àà àHale€and€his€then„partner€went€to€the€area€of€the€Majik€MarketÏparking€lot€on€Hillsboro€Road€and€parked€in€an€unmarked€vehicle€at€aÏlandscaping€business€nearby.€€Almost€immediately€they€observed€theÏdescribed€vehicle€arrive€at€the€Majik€Market,€occupied€by€two€white€malesÏmatching€the€descriptions€given€by€the€confidential€informant.€€The€DefendantððsÏvehicle€sat€in€a€space€at€the€Majik€Market€parking€lot€for€approximately€five€(5)Ïminutes.€€It€was€€then€driven€into€a€larger€parking€area€adjacent€to€where€it€hadÍbeen€sitting,€where€it€sat€for€approximately€two€(2)€to€four€(4)€minutes€beforeÏbeing€driven€back€to€the€original€location.€€Neither€the€Defendant€nor€his€co„defendant€had€stepped€out€of€their€vehicle€the€entire€time€that€it€was€located€inÏthe€area€of€the€œMajik›€Market.€€ÌÌà àà àShortly€thereafter,€as€the€Defendantððs€vehicle€approached€theÏpublic€road,€the€officers€pulled€their€car€into€the€lot,€requiring€the€Defendantððs€carÏto€reverse€and€stop.€€The€officersðð€blue€lights,€located€in€the€grill€of€the€car,€wereÏturned€on€and€both€officers€€got€out€of€their€vehicle€and€identified€themselves€toÏthe€two€men€as€police€officers.€€The€service€weapon€of€at€least€one€officer€wasÏdrawn€€immediately.€€The€Defendant€was€then€advised€of€his€Miranda€rights€byÏDetective€Hale€prior€to€any€questions€being€asked.€€While€stating€that€theÏDefendant€had€not€been€arrested€at€that€point,€Hale€did€admit€that€theÏDefendant€was€not€free€to€go€from€the€moment€he€was€first€approached.€€ÌÌà àà àHale€told€the€Defendant€he€believed€that€he€was€transportingÏmarijuana.€€Hale€then€asked€him€if€this€was€correct€to€which€Defendant€repliedÏaffirmatively€and€stated€that€it€was€in€the€ð ðtrunkðð€area€of€the€vehicle.€€The€vehicleÏwas€actually€a€hatchback.€€At€this€point,€no€marijuana€had€been€seen€by€eitherÏofficer.€€A€search€revealed€that€the€marijuana€was€located€in€DefendantððsÏbackpack,€and€a€pipe€of€the€type€commonly€used€to€smoke€marijuana€wasÍfound€in€a€compartment€on€one€of€the€vehicleððs€doors.€€Both€DefendantsÏsubsequently€gave€statements€to€Detective€Hale.ÌÌà àà àThere€was€no€mention€by€the€confidential€informant€to€Hale€as€toÏthe€amount€of€marijuana€in€the€possession€of€the€Defendant€and€co„defendant.€ÏUp€until€the€time€it€was€actually€discovered€after€the€stop€and€the€search,€theÏofficers€had€no€knowledge€as€to€the€amount€of€marijuana€in€possession€of€theÏDefendant.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€under€the€circumstances€of€the€case,ÏDefendant€was€under€arrest€from€the€very€moment€the€officers€first€approachedÏhis€vehicle.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€even€though€the€officers€hadÏreasonable€suspicion€to€stop€the€Defendantððs€vehicle€and€conduct€furtherÏinvestigation,€they€did€not€yet€have€probable€cause€to€make€the€arrest€at€theÏtime€it€was€made.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€DefendantððsÏmotion€to€suppress€must€be€granted.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€placed€much€emphasis€upon€the€fact€that€the€officersÏhad€no€idea€as€to€the€amount€of€marijuana€that€was€supposedly€located€withinÏthe€Defendantððs€vehicle.€€The€importance€of€this€factor€was€whether€theÏpossession€of€the€marijuana€would€be€a€misdemeanor€offense€(less€than€one„half€ounce),€or€a€felony€(possession€of€more€than€one„half€ounce€infers€intent€toÏsell).€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„17„417€„€419;€òòState€v.€Holtóó,€691€S.W.2d€520Ï(Tenn.€1984).ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€determined€that€there€was€insufficient€proof€of€anÏoffense€being€committed€in€the€presence€of€the€officers€to€justify€a€warrantlessÏarrest€for€a€misdemeanor.€€Furthermore,€the€court€concluded€that€since€theÏamount€of€marijuana€located€in€the€vehicle€could€not€be€determined€based€uponÏinformation€available€to€the€officers€at€the€time€of€the€stop,€then€a€warrantlessÏarrest€for€a€felony€also€was€not€justified.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€have€reviewed€the€record€and€conclude€that€the€moreÏappropriate€analysis€of€the€case€is€to€determine€whether€or€not€there€wasÏprobable€cause€to€justify€a€warrantless€search€of€the€Defendantððs€car€basedÏupon€the€automobile€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement.ÌÌà àà àThe€analysis€of€any€warrantless€search€must€begin€with€theÏproposition€that€such€searches€are€per€se€unreasonable€under€the€FourthÏAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€7€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€This€principle€against€warrantless€searches€is€subjectÏonly€to€a€few€specifically€established€and€well„delineated€exceptions.€€òòœKatz›€v.ÍUnited€Statesóó,€389€U.S.€347,€357€(1967);€òòState€v.€Tyleróó,€598€S.W.2d€798,€801Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€Before€the€fruits€of€a€warrantless€search€areÏadmissible€as€evidence,€the€state€must€establish€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€that€the€search€falls€into€one€of€the€narrowly€drawn€exceptions€to€theÏwarrant€requirement.€€òòState€v.€Shawóó,€603€S.W.2d€741,€742€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1980).€€One€such€exception€is€the€ð ðautomobile€exceptionðð€which€is€allowed€if€anÏofficer€has€probable€cause€to€believe€that€the€vehicle€contains€contraband€andÏexigent€circumstances€require€an€immediate€search.€€òòCarroll€v.€United€Statesóó,Ï267€U.S.€132,€155„56€(1925);€òòState€v.€œLeveye›óó,€796€S.W.2d€948€(Tenn.€1990).€ÌÌà àà àThe€question€in€the€instant€case€turns€on€whether€or€not€the€officersÏhad€probable€cause€to€stop€the€automobile€and€search€it.€€In€this€case,€theÏinformation€that€led€to€both€the€search€and€the€subsequent€arrest€was€suppliedÏby€a€confidential€informant.€€Thus,€in€order€to€prove€probable€cause,€the€StateÏmust€establish€(1)€that€the€informant€had€a€basis€for€his€information€that€aÏperson€was€involved€in€criminal€conduct€and€(2)€that€the€informant€is€credible€orÏhis€information€is€reliable.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€œJacumin›óó,€778€S.W.2d€430€(Tenn.€1989).€ÏThis€two„prong€test€was€first€developed€in€òòœAguilar›€v.€Texasóó,€378€U.S.€108Ï(1964)€and€òòœSpinelli›€v.€United€Statesóó,€393€U.S.€410€(1969).€€When€this€test€isÏapplied€to€warrantless€searches,€the€trial€court€and€the€appellate€courts€mustÏexamine€the€testimony€of€law€enforcement€officers€concerning€the€informationÍsupplied€by€the€informant.€€Thus,€we€must€review€the€testimony€of€DetectiveÏHale€to€determine€whether€the€information€supplied€to€him€by€the€informantÏestablished€probable€cause.€€On€several€occasions,€Tennessee€courts€haveÏpointed€out€that€probable€cause€is€not€a€technical€calculation,€but€a€factual€andÏpractical€consideration€of€everyday€life€upon€which€ð ðreasonable€and€prudentÏ[people],€not€legal€technicians,€act.ðð€€òòState€v.€œMelson›óó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€351Ï(Tenn.€1982)€(citations€omitted).€€For€the€reasons€discussed€below,€we€concludeÏthat€the€police€officers€did€have€probable€cause€to€search€the€DefendantððsÏautomobile.ÌÌà àà àIn€order€to€satisfy€the€first„prong€of€the€òòœAguilar›„œSpinelli›óó€test,€theÏinformant€must€describe€the€manner€in€which€he€gathered€the€information€orÏdescribe€the€criminal€activity€with€great€particularity€to€determine€the€basis€for€hisÏinformation.€€òòState€v.€Velaóó,€645€S.W.2d€765€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€TheÏinformant€in€the€instant€case€gave€detailed€physical€descriptions€of€the€two€men,Ïa€specific€description€of€the€vehicle€they€would€be€in,€including€the€license€plate,Ïand€the€time€period€in€which€the€two€men€would€be€at€a€certain€location.€ÏDetective€Hale€stated€that€he€knew€this€location€to€be€a€common€place€for€drugÏtrafficking.€€He€also€testified€that€the€informant€based€his€information€on€personalÏobservation.€€This€information€was€certainly€ð ðmore€substantial€than€a€casualÏrumor€circulating€in€the€underworld€or€an€accusation€based€merely€on€anÍindividualððs€general€reputation.ðð€€òòœJacumin›óó,€778€S.W.2d€at€432,€òòquotingóó€òòœSpinelli›óó,Ï393€U.S.€at€416.€€Furthermore,€this€Court€has€repeatedly€found€that€anÏinformantððs€personal€observation€of€the€contraband€in€question€is€sufficient€toÏsatisfy€this€prong.€€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Moonóó,€841€S.W.2d€336,€339€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1992).€€Thus,€clearly€sufficient€facts€existed€from€which€one€could€determineÏthe€basis€of€the€information.€€Ì€Ìà àà àThe€second„prong€may€be€satisfied€by€establishing€an€informantððsÏinherent€credibility€or€by€establishing€the€reliability€of€the€information.€€òòSpinellióó,€393ÏU.S.€at€415„16;€òòAguilaróó,€378€U.S.€at€114.€This€Court€has€found€that€anÏinformantððs€veracity€may€be€shown€by€demonstrating€that€he€has€a€previousÏhistory€of€providing€accurate€information€to€law€enforcement€officers.€€òòMoonóó,€841ÏS.W.2d€at€339.€€In€this€case,€Detective€Hale€testified€that€the€informant€hadÏsupplied€him€with€reliable€information€in€the€past€by€providing€detailedÏinformation€about€individuals€who€were€dealing€drugs.€€Hale€said€he€had€beenÏable€to€independently€verify€the€informantððs€information€in€the€past€and€that€itÏhad€all€proved€to€be€accurate.€€From€the€testimony€at€the€suppression€hearing,Ïthe€informantððs€veracity€was€sufficiently€demonstrated€and€Detective€Hale€wasÏjustified€in€relying€on€the€information€supplied€to€him€in€this€case.ÌÌà àà àIf€the€police€have€probable€cause€to€believe€that€an€automobileÏcontains€contraband,€they€may€either€seize€the€car€and€then€obtain€a€searchÏwarrant€or€they€may€search€it€immediately.€€The€Fourth€Amendment€authorizesÏeither€action.€òòChambers€v.€Maroneyóó,€399€U.S.€42,€52€(1970).€€In€òòChambersóó,€theÏSupreme€Court€saw€ð ðno€difference€between€on€the€one€hand€seizing€andÏholding€a€car€before€presenting€the€probable€cause€issue€to€a€magistrate€andÏon€the€other€hand€carrying€out€an€immediate€search€without€a€warrant.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€ÏThe€decision€to€search€the€Defendantððs€car€was€reasonable€under€theÏcircumstances€and€violated€neither€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€or€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Because€weÏhave€already€found€that€probable€cause€existed€to€believe€that€the€vehicleÏcontained€contraband,€we€simply€add€that€the€mobility€of€the€vehicle€itselfÏsupplied€the€requisite€exigent€circumstances€to€conduct€a€warrantless€search.ÏòòCarrollóó,€267€U.S.€at€153;€òòShawóó,€603€S.W.2d€at€744.€€The€exigent€circumstancesÏthat€may€justify€a€warrantless€search€will€be€presumed€when€a€vehicle€isÏinvolved.€òòLeveyeóó,€796€S.W.2d€at€952„53.Ìà àÌà àà àThe€police€officers€were€also€justified€in€unzipping€the€DefendantððsÏbackpack€located€in€the€ð ðtrunkðð€area€of€the€car.€€The€automobile€exception€hasÏbeen€held€to€apply€in€the€context€of€a€locked€car€trunk.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Rossóó,Ï456€U.S.€798€(1982).€€If€there€was€probable€cause€to€search€the€entire€vehicle,Íthe€officersðð€authority€also€extends€to€the€opening€of€closed€containers.€€òòIdóó.€atÏ821.€€€ð ðThe€scope€of€a€warrantless€search€of€an€automobile€.€.€.€is€not€definedÏby€the€nature€of€the€container€in€which€the€contraband€is€secreted.€€Rather,€it€isÏdefined€by€the€object€of€the€search€and€the€places€in€which€there€is€probableÏcause€to€believe€that€it€may€be€found.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€824.€€Furthermore,€it€appears€fromÏthe€record€that€the€Defendant€told€the€officers€that€he€had€marijuana€and€that€itÏwas€located€in€the€ð ðtrunkðð€area.€€Even€if€the€Defendant€did€not€give€his€consentÏfor€the€search,€the€officers€were€still€justified€in€searching€the€entire€vehicle,Ïincluding€the€Defendantððs€backpack.Ì€Ìà àà àGiven€the€facts€discussed€above,€we€conclude€that€the€policeÏofficers€acted€reasonably€under€the€circumstances€and€that€the€search€ofÏDefendantððs€car,€including€his€backpack€located€in€the€ð ðtrunkðð€area,€wasÏsupported€by€probable€cause€and€exigent€circumstances.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€weÏreverse€the€trial€courtððs€order€granting€the€motion€to€suppress€and€remand€thisÏcase€for€further€proceedings.€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________Ì€JOE€G.€RILEY,€Judge