ÿWPC%, zRY­ÁZ„Þ¹¿Yåš¾)M[˜RM <&ߣ'É•­Dï bÚ)]”:†ã{v5÷<ôH÷öê,­%ʉ,þ0ëïI•j¯‡]BÛ;ã,BJù‹4¾ŽcãÀJh¯wô_–CÕ ¦Ü.Íä“÷ƃiš‚dÂ7¤€¬…K #3"¤á|17 "2×DÂ#÷e§e­Jªf_Ç[a¶ÙŒŠ¹‚›D9ñ±&S…Ï`ó˜Möö…gx‹Öÿ¹q~»ÂëQ’ëÑTxÇ{%ξÕPºå œ$1@Æ{@÷å¿+J ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+J ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+J ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25+J ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+J ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/+J ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GJ ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DJ ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AJ ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>J ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;J ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28J ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25J ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22J ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/J ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GJ ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ/%4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DJ ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AJ ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>J ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;J ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-28J ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25J ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22J ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2/J ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(|G2Ñ´$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô2äò»»Ô d(|3v$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3v$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼P»»»ÔÑ8€>¼XXdæ»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îl“PÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼P»îîl“ #ԈРР ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€à @ àà @` àAugust€22,€2000Ð ð@ ÐÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔÌò òÔ#†¼P»XX>¼ #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€òòóóMICHAEL€G.€Ô_ÔWALDRUMÔ_ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔó óÐ ä4 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ Ø ( Ðà@@øøìàNo.€II„142„698€€€€€€Timothy€L.€Easter,€JudgeÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<o` AßÐ pÀ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1999„01924„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€December€8,€2000Ð eµ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<0` AßÐ 1  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€appeals€his€conviction€for€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô,€fourth€offense,€contesting€the€sufficiency€of€theÐ &v  Ðevidence€supporting€his€conviction;€the€validity€of€his€seizure€and€arrest;€and€the€admissibility€of€theÐ  \ Ðbreath€alcohol€test€result,€the€breath€alcohol€test€operatorððs€videotaped€former€testimony,€and€theÐ òB Ðbreath€alcohol€test€machineððs€certification€documents.€€We€concludeÔ#†¼P»XX>¼º#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔ€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ Ø( Ðfinding€the€breath€test€operator€unavailable€and€that€his€videotaped€testimony€should€not€have€beenÐ ¾ Ðallowed.€€We€reverse€the€judgment€of€conviction€and€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial.Ð ¤ô ÐÓÂÓò òÌTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Reversed€andÐ pÀ ÐRemandedó óÐ V¦ ÐÓÓÌòòÓÓÓ  ÓÔ#†¼P»àX>¼Ã#ÔÔ‡X>¼X.¼PÔJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€and€òòRobertÐ "r ÐW.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð X ÐÌJeffrey€S.€Pulley,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€attorney€for€appellant,€Michael€G.€Ô_ÔWaldrumÔ_Ô.Ð Ô$ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Smith,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð  ð ÐRonald€L.€Davis,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Sharon€E.€Tyler,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ † Ö  ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð l!¼! ÐÓ´ÓÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼P»XX>¼ã#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PԈР8#ˆ# ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant,€Michael€G.€Ô_ÔWaldrumÔ_Ô,€appeals€as€of€right€his€conviction€by€a€jury€for€drivingÐ %T % Ðunder€the€influence€(Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô),€fourth€offense,€particularly,€for€driving€while€his€alcohol€concentrationÐ ê%:!& Ðwas€.10€percent€or€more.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401(a)(2).€€On€appeal,€the€defendantÐ Ð& "' Ðcontends€that€€(1)€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€his€conviction,€(2)€the€evidence€obtainedÐ ¶'#( Ðafter€he€was€unconstitutionally€seized€should€have€been€suppressed,€(3)€the€evidence€obtained€afterÐ œ(ì#) Ðhe€was€illegally€arrested€should€have€been€suppressed,€(4)€the€arresting€officer€did€not€properlyÐ ‚)Ò$* Ðperform€the€required€twenty„minute€observation€period€before€administering€the€breath€alcohol€test,€Ð h*¸%+ Ð(5)€the€videotaped€former€testimony€of€the€breath€alcohol€test€operator€was€inadmissible,€and€(6)€theÐ N+ž&, Ðbreath€alcohol€machineððs€certification€documents€were€improperly€admitted€through€the€testimonyÐ 4,„'- Ðof€a€records€keeper.Ô#†¼P»XX>¼÷ #ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔÐ -j(.ý ÐÔ#†¼P»XX>¼ï#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔÌà  àAt€trial,€Pamela€Rose€testified€as€follows:€€On€March€26,€1998,€she€was€awakened€betweenÐ –æ Ð3:00€a.m.€and€3:30€a.m.€by€a€loud€noise€outside€her€Temple€Road€home.€€She€looked€out€a€windowÐ |Ì Ðand€saw€a€dark„colored€truck€passing€in€front€of€her€house.€€The€truck,€which€was€playing€loudÐ b² Ðmusic,€was€slowing€down€and€speeding€up€as€it€traveled€down€the€street.€€After€she€saw€the€truckÐ H˜ Ðpass€in€front€of€her€house€the€third€time,€she€called€the€police€and€asked€them€to€investigate.€€SheÐ . ~ Ðtried€to€go€to€sleep,€but€she€kept€hearing€the€loud€music.€€Around€4:45€a.m.,€she€called€the€policeÐ  d Ðagain,€got€dressed,€went€to€her€car,€and€drove€in€the€direction€of€the€truck.€€She€saw€the€truck,€withÐ ú J Ðloud€music€still€playing,€parked€in€a€private,€dirt€driveway€just€a€few€driveways€down€from€herÐ à 0 Ðhouse.€€She€drove€past€the€truck€and€saw€a€police€car€parked€in€the€parking€lot€of€the€Temple€HillsÐ Æ   ÐGolf€Club.€€She€told€the€police€officer€that€she€had€made€the€complaints€and€informed€the€officerÐ ¬ ü  Ðwhere€the€truck€was€parked.Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àDeputy€Debra€Rogers€with€the€Williamson€County€Sheriffððs€Ô#†¼P»XX>¼J#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔDepartment€testified€as€follows:€Ð ^®  ÐAround€4:45€a.m.€on€March€26,€1998,€she€was€dispatched€to€investigate€a€vehicle€that€was€drivingÐ D”  Ðup€and€down€Temple€Road€playing€loud€music.€€She€arrived€at€the€scene€at€5:02€a.m.€and€drove€theÐ *z  Ðlength€of€Temple€Road,€but€she€did€not€see€any€cars.€€She€parked€in€the€Temple€Hills€Golf€ClubððsÐ ` Ðparking€lot€to€fill€out€some€paperwork.€€While€parked€there,€Pamela€Rose€approached€her€car€andÐ öF Ðtold€her€that€she€had€made€the€complaints€and€where€the€truck€was€parked.€€Deputy€Rogers€droveÐ Ü, Ðto€the€dirt€driveway€and€pulled€her€car€into€the€driveway€behind€the€truck,€which€had€not€been€at€thisÐ Â Ðlocation€when€she€drove€past€it€about€fifteen€minutes€earlier.€€The€driveway€led€to,€and€the€truck€wasÐ ¨ø Ðparked€in€front€of,€a€locked€gate€with€a€no€trespassing€sign.€€However,€she€did€not€notice€the€sign€atÐ ŽÞ Ðthat€time.€€When€she€approached€the€truck,€she€saw€the€defendant€in€the€driverððs€seat€and€the€keysÐ tÄ Ðin€the€ignition.€€SÔ#†¼P»XX>¼¨#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔhe€also€noticed€that€there€was€a€compact€disk€player€in€the€passenger€seatÔ#†¼P»XX>¼g#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔ.€€SheÐ Zª Ðasked€the€defendant€what€he€was€doing,€and€he€said€that€he€had€driven€from€Nashville€to€speak€toÐ @ Ðhis€dead€mother.€€The€defendantððs€speech€was€slurred,€his€eyes€were€bloodshot,€and€there€was€anÐ &v Ðodor€of€alcohol€coming€from€the€truck.€€The€defendant€said€that€he€had€consumed€four€beers€earlierÐ  \ Ðthat€night.€€Although€there€was€not€an€open€container€of€alcohol€in€the€truck,€there€were€about€eightÐ òB Ðunopened€beers.€€When€the€defendant€left€his€car,€he€was€unsteady€on€his€feet.€€After€the€defendantÐ Ø( Ðfailed€several€field€sobriety€tests,€including€the€walk€and€turn€test€and€the€one„leg€stand€test,€sheÐ ¾ Ðarrested€the€defendant.€€She€read€the€defendant€an€implied€consent€form,€and€he€agreed€to€take€aÐ ¤ô Ðbreath€alcohol€test.€€She€took€the€defendant€to€the€Williamson€County€Jail€where€she€reread€theÐ Š Ú Ðimplied€consent€form€to€the€defendant.€€After€he€signed€the€form,€he€was€placed€on€a€bench€in€theÐ p!À  Ðbooking€office,€and€she€began€her€twenty„minute€watch,€at€the€conclusion€of€which€she€took€theÐ V"¦! Ðdefendant€to€perform€the€test.€€Deputy€Ô_ÔDewayneÔ_Ô€Moore€administered€the€test,€which€resulted€in€a€.21Ð <#Œ" Ðpercent€reading.€€Ð "$r# ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€Deputy€Rogers€said€that€she€observed€the€defendant€for€twentyÐ î%>!% Ðminutes€from€the€booking€desk,€which€was€about€twelve€feet€from€where€the€defendant€was€sitting.Ð Ô&$"& ÐShe€testified€that€she€wrote€some€reports€during€the€twenty€minutes€and€that€she€did€not€watch€theÐ º' #' Ðdefendant€eyeball€to€eyeball€for€the€entire€period.€€She€stated€that€she€was€trained€to€prepareÐ  (ð#( Ðpaperwork€and€watch€subjects€at€the€same€time.€€She€said€that€the€purpose€of€the€twenty„minuteÐ †)Ö$) Ðperiod€is€to€insure€that€the€person€does€not€take€anything€into€his€mouth€which€could€affect€the€breathÐ l*¼%* Ðalcohol€test.€€She€said€that€if€the€defendant€had€belched,€hiccupped,€vomited,€or€put€anything€in€hisÐ R+¢&+ Ðmouth,€she€would€have€been€able€to€hear€it.€€Ð 8,ˆ', Їà  àThe€state€introduced€the€videotaped€former€testimony€of€Ô_ÔDewayneÔ_Ô€Moore,Ô#†¼P»XX>¼ó#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔ€who€administeredÐ ° Ðthe€breath€alcohol€test€and€had€testified€at€a€pretrial€hearing.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€Mr.€MooreÐ –æ Ðwas€an€unavailable€witness€under€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€804€and€allowed€the€videotaped€testimony,€whichÐ |Ì Ðwas€as€follows:€At€the€time€of€his€testimony,€he€worked€for€Ô_ÔTranscorpÔ_Ô€America,€involved€in€theÐ b² Ðnationwide€extradition€of€prisoners,€but€on€March€26,€1998,€he€worked€for€the€Williamson€CountyÐ H˜ ÐSheriffððs€Department€and€administered€the€defendantððs€breath€alcohol€test.€€He€was€certified€by€theÐ . ~ Ðforensic€services€division€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€(Ô_ÔTBIÔ_Ô)€to€administer€such€tests.€Ð  d ÐHe€followed€the€set€procedure,€and€the€result€of€the€defendantððs€test€was€.21€percent.€€He€said€thatÐ ú J Ðthe€testing€machine,€the€Ô_ÔIntoximeterÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔECÔ_Ô„IR,€is€certified€by€the€Ô_ÔTBIÔ_Ô.€€Ð à 0 ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€Mr.€Moore€testified€that€he€had€been€certified€to€operate€theÐ ¬ ü  ÐÔ_ÔIntoximeterÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔECÔ_Ô„IR€in€November€of€1997.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€know€who€calibrated€the€machineÐ ’â  Ðor€when€it€was€last€calibrated.€€He€also€stated€that€he€relied€on€the€arresting€officer€to€do€the€twenty„Ð xÈ  Ðminute€observation.Ð ^®  ÐÌà  àCorporal€Teresa€Gray,€a€records€keeper€for€the€Williamson€County€Sheriffððs€Department,Ð *z  Ðtestified€that€the€Ô_ÔTBIÔ_Ô€is€required€to€certify€the€Ô_ÔIntoximeterÔ_Ô€every€ninety€days.€€She€stated€thatÐ ` Ðsomeone€from€the€Ô_ÔTBIÔ_Ô€would€come€to€the€jail€and€test€the€machine€and€that€she€kept€the€records€ofÐ öF Ðthese€tests.€€She€testified€that€the€Ô_ÔIntoximeterÔ_Ô€in€question€was€certified€on€March€3,€1998,€and€onÐ Ü, ÐMay€21,€1998.€€The€certificates€reflecting€these€dates€were€admitted€as€exhibits.€€On€cross„Ð Â Ðexamination,€she€admitted€that€she€kept€the€records€of€the€certifications€but€had€no€way€of€knowingÐ ¨ø Ðif€the€machine€was€working€properly€on€March€26,€1998.€€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEó óÐ Zª ÐÓ´/ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€his€conviction€for€drivingÐ &v Ðwhile€his€alcohol€concentration€was€.10€percent€or€more€because€the€breath€test€relied€upon€wasÐ  \ Ðtaken€an€hour€and€one„half€after€he€was€driving.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€the€test€result€does€notÐ òB Ðshow,€and€the€state€offered€no€evidence€of,€what€his€alcohol€concentration€was€when€he€was€drivingÐ Ø( Ðhis€truck.€€The€defendant€also€argues€that€because€he€was€parked€in€a€private€driveway,€the€jury€couldÐ ¾ Ðnot€have€found€that€he€was€driving€or€in€physical€control€of€his€truck€ð ðon€any€of€the€public€roads€andÐ ¤ô Ðhighways€of€the€state,€or€on€any€streets€or€alleys,€or€while€on€the€premises€of€any€shopping€center,Ð Š Ú Ðtrailer€park,€or€any€apartment€house€complex,€or€any€other€premises€which€is€generally€frequentedÐ p!À  Ðby€the€public€at€large,ðð€which€is€a€required€element€of€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_ÔÔ#†¼P»XX>¼£%#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔ.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401(a).€€TheÐ V"¦! Ðstate€responds€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌà  àÔ‡3X>¼XXX>¼ÔOur€standard€of€review€when€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€questioned€on€appeal€isÐ %X $ Ðð ðwhether,€after€viewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€òòanyóó€rational€trierÐ î%>!% Ðof€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòJacksonÐ Ô&$"& Ðv.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789€(1979).€€This€means€that€we€do€not€Ô_ÔreweighÔ_Ô€theÐ º' #' Ðevidence€but€presume€that€the€jury€has€resolved€all€conflicts€in€the€testimony€and€drawn€allÐ  (ð#( Ðreasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2dÐ †)Ö$) Ð542,€547€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).Ô#†X>¼XX3X>¼5#ÔÔ#†¼P»XX>¼S4#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔÐ l*¼%* Ðâ âÐ R+¢&+ Ðà  àIn€the€present€case,€Ms.€Rose€testified€that€the€defendant€was€driving€up€and€down€TempleÐ ° Ðâ âRoad€and€that€she€followed€him€to€the€dirt€driveway€where€he€parked.Ô#†¼P»XX>¼Ì8#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔ€€Ms.€Rose€told€Deputy€RogersÐ –æ Ðwhere€the€defendant€had€parked€his€truck,€which€Deputy€Rogers€then€investigated.€€Deputy€RogersÐ |Ì Ðtestified€that€the€defendant€smelled€of€alcohol,€his€speech€was€slurred,€and€his€eyes€were€bloodshot.€Ð b² ÐAlso,€the€defendant€admitted€drinking€earlier€in€the€evening€and€performed€poorly€on€several€fieldÐ H˜ Ðsobriety€tests.€€Although€Deputy€Rogers€never€saw€the€defendant€drive€the€truck,€she€said€the€truckÐ . ~ Ðwas€not€parked€in€the€dirt€driveway€fifteen€minutes€earlier€when€she€drove€past€that€location.€Ð  d ÐFinally,€the€defendantððs€breath€test€result€was€a€.21€percent.Ô#†¼P»XX>¼ :#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔ€€The€jury€could€have€inferred€from€thisÐ ú J Ðevidence€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€of€driving€on€a€public€road€whileÐ à 0 Ðhis€alcohol€concentration€was€.10€percent€or€more.Ô#†¼P»XX>¼=#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔÐ Æ   ÐÔ#†¼P»XX>¼9>#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔò òó óÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€SEIZUREó óÐ ’â  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€to€suppress€all€evidenceÐ ^®  Ðobtained€after€his€initial€seizure,€which€he€argues€occurred€when€Deputy€Rogers€parked€behind€hisÐ D”  Ðtruck,€because€Deputy€Rogers€did€not€have€a€reasonable€suspicion,€based€upon€specific€andÐ *z  ÐÔ_ÔarticulableÔ_Ô€facts,€to€believe€that€the€he€had€committed€or€was€about€to€commit€a€criminal€offense.€Ð ` ÐThe€state€responds€that€Deputy€Rogersðð€initial€approach€to€the€defendantððs€truck€was€not€a€seizure.€Ð öF ÐÌà  àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€Deputy€Rogers€was€the€only€witness€that€testified.€€Her€testimonyÐ Â Ðwas€substantially€similar€to€that€at€trial€with€the€following€exceptions:€€When€she€drove€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðlocation€where€the€defendant€was€parked,€she€pulled€into€the€dirt€driveway€at€an€angle.€€TheÐ ŽÞ Ðdefendant€could€not€have€backed€his€truck€out€unless€he€backed€out€at€an€angle.€€She€did€not€knowÐ tÄ Ðwho€owned€the€driveway€where€the€defendant€was€parked.€€She€had€not€seen€the€defendant€drive€theÐ Zª Ðtruck€or€commit€any€crime.€€However,€she€initially€approached€the€truck€because€it€was€suspicious.€Ð @ ÐShe€thought€the€truck€was€suspicious€because€she€had€received€a€dispatch€describing€a€truck€drivingÐ &v Ðup€and€down€the€road€playing€loud€music,€and€the€woman€who€had€made€the€complaint€told€her€thatÐ  \ Ðthe€truck€was€parked€in€a€dirt€driveway€off€the€main€road.€€Moreover,€the€truck€was€not€parked€at€thatÐ òB Ðlocation€when€she€passed€it€fifteen€minutes€earlier.€€Based€upon€Deputy€Rogersðð€testimony,€the€trialÐ Ø( Ðcourt€denied€the€defendantððs€suppression€motion,€ruling€that€the€officer€had€reasonable€suspicion€toÐ ¾ Ðbelieve€that€the€defendant€had€committed€or€was€about€to€commit€a€crime€and€that€this€suspicion€wasÐ ¤ô Ðbased€upon€Ô_ÔarticulableÔ_Ô€facts,€specifically€the€hour€of€the€morning,€the€location€of€the€truck,€and€theÐ Š Ú Ðfact€that€an€individual€who€lived€in€the€neighborhood€had€complained€to€the€police.Ð p!À  Ðà  àÌà  àWhen€reviewing€the€denial€of€a€motion€to€suppress,€we€must€afford€the€trial€courtððs€findingsÐ <#Œ" Ðof€fact€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict€and€affirm€the€denial€unless€the€evidence€in€the€recordÐ "$r# Ðpreponderates€against€the€findings€of€fact€or€a€rule€of€law€has€been€erroneously€applied.€€òòState€v.Ð %X $ ÐÔ_ÔOdomÔ_Ôóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€However,€the€application€of€law€to€the€facts€found€by€theÐ î%>!% Ðtrial€court€is€a€question€of€law,€which€we€review€òòdeóó€òònovoóó.€€òòState€v.€Danielóó,€12€S.W.3d€420,€423Ð Ô&$"& Ð(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔYearganÔ_Ôóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629€(Tenn.€1997)).€Ð º' #' ÐÌà  àThe€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€protects€against€unreasonableÐ †)Ö$) Ðsearches€and€seizures,€and€ð ðArticle€1,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÔ#†¼P»XX>¼>#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔ€is€identical€in€intentÐ l*¼%* Ðand€purpose€with€the€Fourth€Amendment.ðð€€òòState€v.€Downeyóó,€945€S.W.2d€102,€106€(Tenn.€1997)Ð R+¢&+ Ð(citation€omitted).€€The€Fourth€Amendment€requires€officers€to€have€reasonable€suspicion€beforeÐ 8,ˆ', Ðseizing€a€citizen.€€òòDanielóó,€12€S.W.3d€at€424.€€However,€ð ðnot€all€personal€intercourse€betweenÐ ° Ðpolicemen€and€citizens€involves€ððseizuresðð€of€persons.€€Only€when€the€officer,€by€means€of€physicalÐ –æ Ðforce€or€show€of€authority,€has€in€some€way€restrained€the€liberty€of€a€citizenðð€has€a€seizure€occurred.€Ð |Ì ÐòòId.óó€€In€determining€whether€a€seizure€has€occurred,€ð ða€court€must€consider€all€the€circumstancesÐ b² Ðsurrounding€the€encounter€to€determine€whether€police€conduct€would€have€communicated€to€aÐ H˜ Ðreasonable€person€that€the€person€was€not€free€to€decline€the€officerððs€request€or€otherwise€terminateÐ . ~ Ðthe€encounter.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€425€(citing€òòFlorida€v.€Ô_ÔBostickÔ_Ôóó,€501€U.S.€429,€440,€111€S.€Ct.€2382,€2389Ð  d Ð(1991)).€€If€the€police„citizen€encounter€constitutes€a€seizure,€then,€to€be€valid,€the€officer€must€haveÐ ú J Ðð ða€reasonable€suspicion,€supported€by€specific€and€Ô_ÔarticulableÔ_Ô€facts,€that€a€criminal€offense€has€been,Ð à 0 Ðor€is€about€to€be,€committed.ðð€€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€775€S.W.2d€372,€377€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1989)€(citingÐ Æ   ÐòòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€21„22,€88€S.€Ct.€1868,€1879„80€(1968)).€€In€determining€whether€anÐ ¬ ü  Ðofficerððs€reasonable€suspicion€is€supported€by€specific€and€Ô_ÔarticulableÔ_Ô€facts,€ð ða€court€should€considerÐ ’â  Ðthe€totality€of€the€circumstances€ð!ð€the€entire€picture.ðð€€òòMooreóó,€775€S.W.2d€at€377€(citations€omitted).€Ð xÈ  ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€we€must€first€determine€whether€a€seizure€occurred.€€If€one€occurred,€then€weÐ D”  Ðmust€determine€whether€Deputy€Rogers€had€a€reasonable€suspicion€based€upon€specific€andÐ *z  ÐÔ_ÔarticulableÔ_Ô€facts€that€a€crime€had€been€or€was€about€to€be€committed.€€The€defendant€argues€that€heÐ ` Ðwas€seized€when€Deputy€Rogers€parked€her€car€behind€his€truck€and€blocked€him,€restricting€hisÐ öF Ðfreedom€to€leave.€€When€Deputy€Rogers€was€questioned€about€how€she€parked€her€car,€she€testifiedÐ Ü, Ðthat€she€pulled€behind€the€defendantððs€truck€at€an€angle.€€When€she€was€asked€whether€the€defendantÐ Â Ðcould€have€backed€his€truck€out,€she€responded,€ð ðProbably€not,€not€unless€he€came€out€at€an€angle.ðð€Ð ¨ø ÐFrom€this€testimony,€it€is€unclear€whether€the€defendant€was€seized€at€the€moment€Deputy€RogersÐ ŽÞ Ðparked€her€car.€€However,€it€is€not€necessary€to€resolve€this€issue€because€Ô#†¼P»XX>¼L#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔwe€conclude€that€DeputyÐ tÄ ÐRogers€had€reasonable€suspicion,€based€upon€specific€and€Ô_ÔarticulableÔ_Ô€facts,€that€a€crime€had€been€orÐ Zª Ðwas€about€to€be€committed.€€Around€4:45€a.m.,€Deputy€Rogers€received€a€dispatch€to€investigate€aÐ @ Ðtruck€that€was€traveling€up€and€down€Temple€Road€playing€loud€music.€€While€parked€in€a€parkingÐ &v Ðlot,€a€woman€approached€her€car,€identified€herself€as€the€person€who€had€made€the€complaints,€andÐ  \ Ðtold€her€that€she€had€followed€the€truck€and€knew€where€the€truck€was€parked.€€When€Deputy€RogersÐ òB Ðdrove€to€that€location,€a€dirt€driveway€that€connected€to€the€main€road€and€led€to€a€locked€gate,€sheÐ Ø( Ðrealized€that€the€truck€had€not€been€parked€there€when€she€drove€past€that€location€about€fifteenÐ ¾ Ðminutes€earlier.€€These€circumstances,€as€the€trial€judge€also€found,€created€sufficient€reasonableÐ ¤ô Ðsuspicion€to€believe€that€a€crime€had€been€or€was€about€to€be€committed.Ð Š Ú ÐÌò òÓ  ÓÌÌÌIII.€ILLEGAL€ARRESTÐ %X $ ÐÓ  Óó óÌà  àThe€defendantððs€third€argument€is€that€he€was€illegally€arrested€without€a€warrant€for€aÐ Ô&$"& Ðmisdemeanor€offense€that€was€not€committed€in€Deputy€Rogersðð€presence.€€The€defendantððsÐ º' #' Ðargument€focuses€on€the€fact€that€Deputy€Rogers€never€saw€him€drive€or€in€physical€control€of€theÐ  (ð#( Ðtruck€while€ð ðon€any€of€the€public€roads€and€highways€of€the€state,€or€on€any€streets€or€alleys,€orÐ †)Ö$) Ðwhile€on€the€premises€of€any€shopping€center,€trailer€park,€or€any€apartment€house€complex,€or€anyÐ l*¼%* Ðother€premises€which€is€generally€frequented€by€the€public€at€large,ðð€which€is€a€required€element€ofÐ R+¢&+ ÐÔ_ÔDUIÔ_Ô.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401.€Ð 8,ˆ', Їà  àAn€officer€may€not€make€a€Ô_ÔwarrantlessÔ_Ô€arrest€for€a€misdemeanor€offense€unless€such€offenseÐ ° Ðis€committed€in€the€officerððs€presence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„7„103(a)(1);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔDuerÔ_Ôóó,€616Ð –æ ÐS.W.2d€614,€615€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1981)€(citations€omitted).€€Two€limited€exceptions€to€the€ð ðinÐ |Ì Ðthe€presenceðð€rule€exist€for€certain€circumstances€in€which€an€officer€suspects€an€individual€of€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô.€Ð b² ÐHowever,€both€of€these€exceptions€involve€an€intoxicated€driver€in€a€traffic€accident.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð H˜ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„7„103(a)(6),€(8).€€The€state€concedes€that€the€defendant€did€not€commit€a€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_ÔÐ . ~ Ðoffense€in€Deputy€Rogersðð€presence€because€she€never€observed€him€driving€or€in€physical€controlÐ  d Ðof€the€truck€in€any€of€the€areas€designated€by€the€statute.€€The€state€also€concedes€that€neither€of€theÐ ú J Ðð ðin€the€presenceðð€exceptions€apply€in€this€case.€€However,€the€state€argues€that€the€defendant€hasÐ à 0 Ðwaived€this€issue€and,€regardless€of€waiver,€that€the€arrest€was€legal€because€Deputy€Rogers€couldÐ Æ   Ðhave€lawfully€arrested€the€defendant€for€criminal€trespass.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌà  àThe€state€first€argues€that€the€defendant€has€waived€the€Ô_ÔwarrantlessÔ_Ô€arrest€issue€because€it€wasÐ xÈ  Ðnever€presented€as€a€statutory€violation€in€the€trial€court,€but€only€as€a€violation€of€the€United€StatesÐ ^®  Ðand€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€While€we€recognize€that€the€defendant€did€not€cite€to€the€applicableÐ D”  Ðstatute€in€his€motion€to€dismiss,€this€does€not€waive€his€right€to€appeal€the€issue.€€The€defendantÐ *z  Ðmoved€to€dismiss€the€case€on€the€grounds€that€he€was€illegally€arrested€because€he€was€arrestedÐ ` Ðwithout€a€warrant€for€a€misdemeanor€offense€that€was€not€committed€in€an€officerððs€presence.€€TheÐ öF Ðtrial€court€heard€this€argument€and€denied€the€defendantððs€motion.€€Therefore,€the€defendant€isÐ Ü, Ðentitled€to€appeal€the€issue.€€òòSeeóó€Ô_ÔT.R.A.P.Ô_Ô€36(a).Ð Â ÐÌà  àÔ#†¼P»XX>¼X#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔThe€state€also€argues€that€the€arrest€was€legal€because€Deputy€Rogers€had€grounds€to€arrestÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€defendant€for€criminal€trespass.€€ð ðWhere€an€officer€makes€an€arrest€which€is€properly€supportedÐ tÄ Ðby€probable€cause€to€arrest€for€one€offense,€neither€his€subjective€reliance€on€an€offense€for€whichÐ Zª Ðno€probable€cause€exists€nor€his€verbal€announcement€of€the€wrong€offense€vitiates€the€arrest.ðð€Ð @ ÐòòÔ_ÔDuerÔ_Ôóó,€616€S.W.2d€at€616€(citing€6A€Ô_ÔC.J.S.Ô_Ô€Arrest€ðð€21€(1975)).€€ð ðIn€other€words,€the€test€does€notÐ &v Ðrest€on€the€officerððs€subjective€conclusion€as€to€what€offense€has€been€committed.€€Rather,€the€testÐ  \ Ðis€whether€the€facts€and€circumstances€present€are€sufficient€to€enable€the€court€to€see€that€someÐ òB Ðoffense€has€been€committed€that€would€have€justified€a€legal€arrest.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔDuerÔ_Ôóó,€616€S.W.2d€at€616.€€Ð Ø( ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€state€argues€that€facts€and€circumstances€existed€such€that€DeputyÐ ¤ô ÐRogers€would€have€been€justified€in€arresting€the€defendant€for€criminal€trespass,€which€is€defined,Ð Š Ú Ðin€relevant€part,€as:Ð p!À  Ðà8  à(a)€€A€person€commits€criminal€trespass€who,€knowing€the€person€does€not€have€theÐ V"¦! Ðownerððs€effective€consent€to€do€so,€enters€or€remains€on€property,€or€a€portionÐ <#Œ" Ðthereof.€€Knowledge€that€a€person€did€not€have€the€ownerððs€effective€consent€may€beÐ "$r# Ðinferred€where€notice€against€entering€or€remaining€is€given€by:Ð%X $Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌà  àà ` à(3)€Posting€reasonably€likely€to€come€to€the€attention€of€intruders.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„14„405(a)(3).€€The€state€argues€that€the€defendant€was€parked€on€privateÐ l*¼%* Ðproperty,€on€which€a€sign€was€posted€warning€that€trespassers€would€be€prosecuted.€€Further,€the€€Ð R+¢&+ Ðdefendant€parked€his€truck€right€in€front€of€the€gate€on€which€the€sign€was€posted.€€However,€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðdefendant,€as€Deputy€Rogers€testified,€was€on€the€street€side€of€the€gate.€€He€was€not€in€the€areaÐ ° Ðprohibited€by€the€posted€sign.ò ò€€ó óÔ‡4X>¼XXX>¼ÔTherefore€there€are€no€facts€or€circumstances€in€the€record€that€wouldÐ –æ Ðhave€justified€Deputy€Rogers€arresting€the€defendant€for€criminal€trespass.€€Ð |Ì ÐÌà  àHowever,€the€record€reveals€that€Deputy€Rogers€could€have€lawfully€arrested€the€defendantÐ H˜ Ðfor€public€intoxication,€which€is€defined€as€follows:Ð . ~ ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÌ(a)€A€person€commits€the€offense€of€public€intoxication€who€appears€in€a€public€placeÐ ú J Ðunder€the€influence€of€a€controlled€substance€or€any€other€intoxicating€substance€toÐ à 0 Ðthe€degree€that:Ð Æ   ÐÌà ` à(1)€The€offender€may€be€endangered;Ð ’â  Ðà ` à(2)€There€is€endangerment€to€other€persons€or€property;€€orÐ xÈ  ÐÓÓà ` à(3)€The€offender€unreasonably€annoys€people€in€the€vicinity.€€Ð ^®  ÐÓ X»uÓÓ X­uÓÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„310.€€A€ð ðpublic€placeðð€is€one€in€which€ð ðthe€public€or€a€group€of€personsÐ *z  Ðhas€access.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(a)(29).€ð ðA€location€to€which€such€a€right€to€access€existsÐ ` Ðdoes€not€lose€its€character€as€a€ððpublic€placeðð€simply€because€others€are€not€present€to€observe€theÐ öF Ðdefendantððs€drunken€condition.ðð€€òòState€v.€Lawsonóó,€776€S.W.2d€139,€140€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1989).€Ð Ü, ÐMoreover,€an€individualððs€presence€inside€a€car€on€a€public€road€does€not€convert€the€individualððsÐ Â Ðintoxication€to€one€of€private€rather€than€public.€€òòId.óó€Ð ¨ø Ðà  àÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€William€David€Harmonóó,€the€defendant€was€unconscious€in€his€car,€which€was€theÐ tÄ Ðonly€car€parked€in€the€parking€lot€of€a€restaurant€that€had€closed€for€the€night.€€òòóóNo.€46,€JohnsonÐ Zª ÐCounty,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€Jan.€4,€1990),€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Mar.€5,€1990).€€The€parkingÐ @ Ðlot€was€not€fenced€or€roped€off,€and€it€was€in€full€view€of€the€public.€€òòId.óó€€We€held€that€the€defendantÐ &v Ðwas€legally€arrested€for€public€intoxication,€concluding€that€the€parking€lot€was€an€area€to€which€theÐ  \ Ðpublic€had€access.€€òòId.óó€€Ð òB ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€the€defendant€was€parked€in€a€driveway€that€connected€to€Temple€Road.€Ð ¾ ÐWhile€the€driveway€led€to€a€locked€gate,€nothing€restricted€the€publicððs€access€to€the€driveway€itself.€Ð ¤ô ÐTherefore,€the€driveway,€like€the€parking€lot€in€òòHarmonóó,€is€a€public€place€as€defined€by€the€statute.€Ð Š Ú ÐBecause€Deputy€Rogers€had€sufficient€evidence€that€the€defendant€was€intoxicated,€the€onlyÐ p!À  Ðremaining€question€is€whether€the€defendant€was€intoxicated€to€one€of€the€degrees€listed€in€theÐ V"¦! Ðstatute.€€Ô#†X>¼XX4X>¼ t#ÔÔ‡4X>¼XXX>¼ÔÔ#†4¼P»X4X>¼Rj#ÔÔ‡4X>¼X»4¼PÔDeputy€Rogers€knew€that€the€defendant€had€been€driving€recently€because€the€truck€was€notÐ <#Œ" Ðthere€when€she€passed€by€the€location€fifteen€minutes€earlier.€€The€defendant€was€intoxicated€whileÐ "$r# Ðsitting€in€his€truck€with€the€keys€in€the€ignition€and€Ô#†X>¼XX4X>¼l€#ÔÔ#†¼P»XX>¼®€#ÔÔ‡4¼P»»¼PÔÔ‡4X>¼X»4¼PÔhad€the€immediate€ability€to€drive€again€on€theÐ %X $ Ðpublic€roads.€€Ô#†X>¼XX4X>¼0‚#ÔÔ#†¼P»XX>¼O‚#ÔÔ‡4¼P»»¼PÔÔ‡4X>¼X»4¼PÔWe€conclude€from€these€facts€that€the€defendant€as€well€as€other€persons€or€propertyÐ î%>!% Ðwere€endangered.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€James€Shannon€Stanleyóó,€No.€01C01„9206„CC„00183,€WilliamsonÐ Ô&$"& ÐCounty€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€Jan.€28,€1993)€(concluding€that€an€intoxicated€passenger€in€a€car€in€whichÐ º' #' Ðthe€driver€was€arrested€for€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô€was€properly€arrested€for€public€intoxication€because€had€he€decidedÐ  (ð#( Ðto€drive€the€car,€he€would€have€been€a€danger€to€himself€as€well€as€to€others);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.Ð †)Ö$) ÐCharles€Lee€Whiteóó,€No.€02C01„9501„CC„00025,€Madison€County€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€Sept.€20,Ð l*¼%* Ð1995),€òòapp.óó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Mar.€4,€1996).€€Therefore,€because€Deputy€Rogers€would€have€beenÐ R+¢&+ Ðjustified€in€arresting€the€defendant€for€public€intoxication,€the€defendantððs€arrest€was€legal.€€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÔ#†X>¼XX4X>¼ƒ#ÔÔ#†¼P»XX>¼&ƒ#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔò òó óÌò òÓ  ÓIV.€€BREATH€TEST€PROCEDURESÐ –æ ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àó óThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€result€of€the€breath€alcoholÐ b² Ðtest€because€the€state€failed€to€lay€the€proper€foundation€as€required€by€òòState€v.€Sensingóó,€843€S.W.2dÐ H˜ Ð412€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€defendant€specifically€asserts€that€the€required€twenty„minute€observationÐ . ~ Ðperiod€was€not€satisfied.€€The€state€responds€that€the€arresting€officer,€Deputy€Rogers,€observed€theÐ  d Ðdefendant€for€twenty€continuous€minutes€as€required€by€òòSensingóó.€Ð ú J ÐÌà  à€€The€defendant€moved€before€trial€to€determine€the€admissibility€of€the€breath€alcohol€test,Ð Æ   Ðand€the€trial€court€found€that€the€state€proved€all€of€the€òòSensingóó€requirements€and,€thus,€that€the€resultÐ ¬ ü  Ðof€the€test€was€admissible.€€The€defendant€renewed€his€objection€at€trial,€asserting€that€the€state€failedÐ ’â  Ðto€show€compliance€with€the€required€twenty„minute€observation€period.€€The€trial€court€overruledÐ xÈ  Ðhis€objection€and€allowed€the€result€of€the€breath€test€to€be€admitted€into€evidence.€On€appeal,€weÐ ^®  Ðpresume€that€the€trial€courtððs€determination€regarding€the€òòSensingóó€requirements€is€correct€unless€theÐ D”  Ðevidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Edisonóó,€9€S.W.3d€75,€78€(Tenn.€1999).Ô#†¼P»XX>¼¦‡#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔÐ *z  ÐÌà  àIn€òòSensingóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€set€forth€six€requirements€for€the€admissibility€ofÐ öF Ðbreath€alcohol€test€results,€including€òòóóthat€ð ðthe€motorist€was€observed€for€the€requisite€20€minutesÐ Ü, Ðprior€to€the€test,€and€during€this€period,€he€did€not€have€foreign€matter€in€his€mouth,€did€not€consumeÐ Â Ðany€alcoholic€beverages,€smoke,€or€regurgitate.ðð€€òòSensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€at€416.Ô#†¼P»XX>¼Ó#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔòòóó€€We€have€previouslyÐ ¨ø Ðaddressed€the€parameters€of€the€twenty„minute€observation€period.€€In€òòState€v.€Deloitóó,€964€S.W.2dÐ ŽÞ Ð909€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997),€the€officer€observed€the€defendant€for€fifteen€minutes€while€he€wasÐ tÄ Ðperforming€field€sobriety€tests€and€then€watched€the€defendant€in€the€rearview€mirror€for€anÐ Zª Ðadditional€ten€to€thirteen€minutes€while€he€filled€out€paperwork€in€the€front€seat€of€the€police€car.€Ð @ ÐThe€officer€admitted€that€he€could€not€see€the€defendant€while€he€was€writing.€€This€court€held€thatÐ &v Ðthe€officerððs€actions€did€not€meet€the€twenty„minute€observation€requirement,€noting€that€the€officerÐ  \ Ðmust€ð ðððcontinuously€observe[€]€the€test€subject,€with€his€or€her€eyes,€for€the€entire€twenty„minuteÐ òB Ðobservational€period.ðððð€€òòId.óó€at€916„17€(quoting€òòState€v.€Harold€E.€Fieldsóó,€No.€01C01„9412„CC„00438,Ð Ø( ÐWilliamson€County,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€12,€1996))€(brackets€in€original);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÐ ¾ ÐòòState€Ô_Ôv.McCaslinÔ_Ôóó,€894€S.W.2d€310,€311„12€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1994)€(holding€that€being€in€theÐ ¤ô Ðpresence€of€the€officer€while€in€the€backseat€of€the€patrol€car€did€not€satisfy€the€twenty„minuteÐ Š Ú Ðobservationòòóó€prerequisite).€€Ð p!À  ÐÌà  àIn€òòFieldsóó,€the€officer€stayed€in€a€room€with€the€defendant€but€filled€out€paperwork€and€enteredÐ <#Œ" Ðdata€into€the€Ô_ÔIntoximeterÔ_Ô€during€the€observation€period.€€We€noted€that€ð ðin€light€of€the€relaxedÐ "$r# Ðstandard€for€admitting€breath€alcohol€test€results,€the€threshold€requirements€for€admissibility€of€suchÐ %X $ Ðtest€results€must€be€scrupulously€followed.ðð€€òòFieldsóó,€slip€op.€at€4.€€The€officer€must€be€able€to€showÐ î%>!% Ðthat€during€the€twenty„minute€period,€nothing€happened€that€would€affect€the€validity€of€the€test.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐòòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€5.€€While€an€ð ðunblinking€gazeðð€for€twenty€minutes€is€not€required,€we€have€previouslyÐ º' #' Ðstated€that€the€officer€must€be€watching€the€defendant€rather€than€performing€other€tasks.€€òòState€v.Ð  (ð#( ÐRichard€Ô_ÔKorsakovÔ_Ôóó,€No.€E1999„01530„CCA„R3„CD,€Hamilton€County,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.Ð †)Ö$) ÐApp.€July€13,€2000).€Ð l*¼%* Ðâ âÐ R+¢&+ Ðà  àIn€òòÔ_ÔKorsakovÔ_Ôóó,€the€officer€did€paperwork€while€observing€the€defendant€for€twenty€minutes.€Ð ° Ðâ âThe€officer€testified€that€the€defendant€did€not€eat,€drink,€smoke,€vomit,€or€belch€during€theÐ –æ Ðobservation€period.€€However,€the€officer€admitted€that€he€was€not€looking€at€the€defendant€whileÐ |Ì Ðhe€was€writing.€€Despite€the€officerððs€confidence€that€he€would€have€heard€or€smelled€any€of€theÐ b² Ðlisted€activities€that€he€did€not€see,€we€noted€that€although€ð ðoften€a€belch€or€regurgitation€willÐ H˜ Ðproduce€a€noise€capable€of€being€heard€by€another€person,€this€is€not€always€the€case.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citingÐ . ~ ÐòòFieldsóó,€slip€op.€at€5).€€An€officerððs€belief€that€he€would€have€heard€or€smelled€anything€he€did€notÐ  d Ðsee€does€not€satisfy€the€prerequisite€that€the€defendant€must€be€observed€for€twenty€minutes.€Ð ú J ÐòòÔ_ÔKorsakovÔ_Ôóó,€slip€op.€at€6.Ð à 0 Ѐ€Ð Æ   Ðà  àIn€this€case,€at€the€pretrial€hearing€to€determine€the€admissibility€of€the€breath€alcohol€testÐ ¬ ü  Ðresult,€Deputy€Rogers€testified€that€she€did€not€remember€if€she€had€started€doing€her€paperworkÐ ’â  Ðduring€the€twenty„minute€observation€period€but€admitted€that€she€òòcouldóó€have€been€doing€paperwork.Ð xÈ  ÐÔ#†¼P»XX>¼#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔShe€affirmatively€stated,€however,€that€she€maintained€constant€eye€contact€with€the€defendantððsÐ ^®  Ðperson€for€at€least€twenty€minutes.€€Under€these€facts,€we€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÐ D”  Ðagainst€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€that€the€twenty„minute€observation€period€was€performed€as€requiredÐ *z  Ðby€òòSensingóó.€€However,€at€trial€Deputy€Rogers€testified,€similar€to€the€officers€in€òòFieldsóó€and€òòKorsakovóó,Ð ` ÐÔ#†¼P»XX>¼Ÿ #ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔ€Ô#†¼P»XX>¼Ý¢#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔthat€she€òòdidóó€do€paperwork€during€the€twenty„minute€observation€period.€€She€testified€that€she€was€Ð öF Ða€few€feet€away€from€the€defendant€and€would€have€been€able€to€hear€anything€that€happened.€€SheÐ Ü, Ðstated€that€the€purpose€of€the€twenty„minute€observation€is€to€insure€that€nothing€goes€in€or€comesÐ Â Ðout€of€the€individualððs€mouth€and€that€nothing€went€in€or€came€out€of€the€defendantððs€mouth€duringÐ ¨ø Ðher€observation.€€She€admitted,€however,€that€she€was€not€watching€the€defendant€while€she€wasÐ ŽÞ Ðwriting.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àAfter€this€trial€testimony,€the€defendant€renewed€his€objection€to€the€admissibility€of€theÐ @ Ðbreath€test€result€on€the€grounds€that€the€state€failed€to€show€that€the€twenty„minute€observationÐ &v Ðperiod€was€satisfied.€€The€trial€court€stated€that€it€had€ruled€on€the€objection€before€and€that€it€was€Ð  \ Ðstanding€by€its€ruling.€€To€the€extent€that€it€may€be€inferred€that€this€ruling€is€based€upon€DeputyÐ òB ÐRogersðð€trial€testimony,€we€believe€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€thatÐ Ø( Ðthe€required€twenty„minute€period€was€satisfied.€€However,€the€trial€court€did€not€make,€nor€did€theÐ ¾ Ðdefendant€request€it€to€make,€any€findings€of€fact€when€it€denied€the€defendantððs€objection€at€trial.€Ð ¤ô ÐTherefore,€we€cannot€determine€whether€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€was€based€upon€the€testimony€fromÐ Š Ú Ðtrial€or€from€the€pretrial€hearing.€€As€a€result,€we€are€not€in€a€position€to€determine€whether€theÐ p!À  Ðevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding.€Ô#†¼P»XX>¼ £#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔò òÐ V"¦! Ðó óà0  à€Ô#†¼P»XX>¼kª#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔò òÐ<#Œ"(#(# ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†¼P»XX>¼Õª#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔV.€VIDEOTAPED€FORMER€TESTIMONYÐ "$r# ÐÓ  Óó óÌà  àAt€the€pretrial€hearing€to€determine€the€admissibility€of€the€breath€test€result,€Ô#†¼P»XX>¼E«#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔMr.€DewayneÐ î%>!% ÐMoore,€who€administered€the€breath€alcohol€test€to€the€defendant,€testifiedÔ#†¼P»XX>¼(¬#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔ€that€he€was€certified€byÐ Ô&$"& Ðthe€forensic€services€division€of€the€TBI€to€administer€such€tests€and€that€he€properly€administeredÐ º' #' Ðthe€test€to€the€defendant.€€Although€Mr.€Moore€did€not€appear€at€trial,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€he€wasÐ  (ð#( Ðan€unavailable€witness€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€804€and€allowed€the€state€to€play€his€videotaped€formerÐ †)Ö$) Ðtestimony,€which€established€three€of€the€òòSensingóó€requirements€ð!ð€evidence€that€the€tests€wereÐ l*¼%* Ðperformed€in€accordance€with€the€standards€and€operating€procedure€promulgated€by€the€forensicÐ R+¢&+ Ðservices€division€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation;€evidence€that€the€test€operator€followedÐ 8,ˆ', Ðthe€prescribed€operational€procedure;€and€evidence€that€the€printout€record€of€the€test€result€offeredÐ ° Ðinto€evidence€was€the€result€of€the€test€given€to€the€defendant.€€òòSensingóó,€843€S.W.2d€at€416.€€TheÐ –æ Ðdefendant€argues€that€Mr.€Moore€was€not€unavailable€under€Rule€804€and€that€allowing€theÐ |Ì Ðvideotaped€testimony€violated€his€constitutional€right€to€be€confronted€with€witnesses€€against€him.€Ð b² ÐThe€state€responds€that€Mr.€Moore€was€unavailable€and€that€the€defendantððs€constitutional€rightsÐ H˜ Ðwere€not€violated.€€We€agree€with€the€defendant,€concluding€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€Mr.Ð . ~ ÐMoore€unavailable€and€that€allowing€the€taped€testimony€violated€his€constitutional€right€toÐ  d Ðconfrontation.Ð ú J ÐÔ#†¼P»XX>¼Õ¬#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔà  àÌà  àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€ð ðthe€former€testimony€exception€to€the€hearsayÐ Æ   Ðrule€has€sufficient€ððindicia€of€reliabilityðð€so€that€the€admission€of€evidence€thereunder€comports€withÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€right€of€confrontation.ðð€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€251€(Tenn.€1993).€€Therefore,€if€Mr.Ð ’â  ÐMooreððs€videotaped€former€testimony€satisfies€the€requirements€of€the€former€testimony€hearsayÐ xÈ  Ðexception,€then€it€would€also€satisfy€the€defendantððs€right€to€confrontation.€€Rule€804(b)(1)€states€theÐ ^®  Ðformer€testimony€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule€of€exclusion,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€802.€€However,€thisÐ D”  Ðexception€applies€only€when€the€witness€is€unavailable,€which€is€defined€in€section€(a)€of€the€rule.€Ð *z  ÐThe€relevant€part€of€the€definition€is€section€(a)(5),€which€states€that€the€declarant€is€unavailableÐ ` Ðwhen€ð ðabsent€from€the€hearing€and€the€proponent€of€a€statement€has€been€unable€to€procure€theÐ öF Ðdeclarantððs€attendance€by€process.ðð€€Moreover,€the€state€must€show€that€ð ðthe€declarant€is€trulyÐ Ü, Ðunavailable€after€òòóógood€faith€efforts€to€obtain€her€presenceðð€to€satisfy€the€defendantððs€constitutionalÐ Â Ðright€to€confrontation.€€Ô#†¼P»XX>¼€³#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔòòState€v.€Arnoldóó,€719€S.W.2d€543,€548€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).Ô#†¼P»XX>¼H¹#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àOn€the€morning€of€the€trial€in€the€present€case,€the€state€moved€to€have€Mr.€Moore€declaredÐ tÄ Ðan€unavailable€witness.€€The€state€asserted€that€Mr.€Moore€no€longer€worked€for€the€WilliamsonÐ Zª ÐCounty€Sheriffððs€Department€and€that€his€current€job€required€him€to€work€throughout€the€country.€Ð @ ÐThe€state€said€that€it€had€a€difficult€time€procuring€Mr.€Mooreððs€presence€at€the€pretrial€hearing€andÐ &v Ðthat€it€did€not€know€where€Mr.€Moore€was€at€the€present€time.€€The€state€asserted€that€Mr.€MooreÐ  \ Ðwas€beyond€its€subpoena€power.€€However,€the€state€admitted€that€it€did€not€know€where€Mr.€MooreÐ òB Ðlived.€€More€importantly,€the€state€did€not€offer€any€evidence€of€any€attempt€to€locate€Mr.€Moore.€Ð Ø( ÐGiven€these€facts,€the€state€failed€to€show€that€Mr.€Moore€was€ð ðtruly€unavailable€after€òòóógood€faithÐ ¾ Ðeffortsðð€to€obtain€his€presence.€€Accordingly,€Rule€804's€requirement€of€unavailability€was€notÐ ¤ô Ðsatisfied,€and€the€defendantððs€right€to€confrontation€was€violated€by€allowing€Mr.€Mooreððs€formerÐ Š Ú Ðtestimony.€€Without€Mr.€Mooreððs€testimony,€the€state€fails€to€establish€three€of€the€òòSensingóóÐ p!À  Ðrequirements.€€Therefore,€the€result€of€the€defendantððs€breath€alcohol€test€should€not€have€beenÐ V"¦! Ðadmitted€into€evidence.ò ò€€ó óBecause€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€driving€while€his€alcoholÐ <#Œ" Ðconcentration€was€.10€percent€or€more,€Tenn.€Code€Ann€ðð€55„10„401(a)(2),€we€reverse€the€judgmentÐ "$r# Ðof€conviction€and€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial.€Ð %X $ ÐÌà  àRelative€to€a€new€trial,€we€note€that€the€defendant€was€indicted€in€separate€counts€of€drivingÐ Ô&$"& Ðunder€the€influence,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401(a)(1),€and€driving€with€an€alcohol€concentrationÐ º' #' Ðof€.10€percent€or€more,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401(a)(2).€€Ô#†¼P»XX>¼Í¹#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔThe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€thatÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€two€counts€were€alternative€and€to€return€a€verdict€that€(1)€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€drivingÐ †)Ö$) Ðunder€the€influence,€(2)€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€driving€with€an€alcohol€concentration€of€.10Ð l*¼%* Ðpercent€or€more,€òòoróó€(3)€the€defendant€was€not€guilty.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€that€the€defendantÐ R+¢&+ Ðwas€guilty€of€driving€with€an€alcohol€concentration€of€.10€percent€or€more.Ô#†¼P»XX>¼?Â#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔ€€ð ðTypically,€when€a€juryÐ 8,ˆ', Ðis€given€a€multi„count€charge€and€returns€a€special€verdict€convicting€the€defendant€of€one€of€theÐ ° Ðcharges€but€which€is€silent€as€to€the€other€charges,€the€defendant€is€deemed€acquitted€of€the€otherÐ –æ Ðcharges.ðð€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€979€S.W.2d€276,€290„91€(Tenn.€1998)€(citation€omitted).€€However,€whenÐ |Ì Ðthe€jury€is€denied€the€opportunity€to€consider€the€other€charges,€then€the€doctrine€of€implied€acquittalÐ b² Ðdoes€not€apply.€€òòId.óó€at€291„92€(holding€that€doctrine€of€implied€acquittal€did€not€apply€to€charges€onÐ H˜ Ðwhich€the€jury€was€silent€when€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€effectively€denied€the€jury€theÐ . ~ Ðopportunity€to€return€a€verdict€on€those€charges).€€Such€is€the€case€before€us.€€Therefore,€the€verdictÐ  d Ðdoes€not€operate€as€an€implied€acquittal€on€the€driving€under€the€influence€charge.€€òòóóAccordingly,€theÐ ú J Ðstate€may€proceed€on€both€charges.€ò òÐ à 0 Ðó óà0  à€Ô#†¼P»XX>¼xÄ#Ôò òó óÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔÐÆ  (#(# Ðò òÓ  ÓVI.€€CERTIFICATION€DOCUMENTSà0 @ àó óÐ ¬ ü  ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àAt€trial,€the€state€introduced€the€breath€testing€machineððs€certification€documents€throughÐ xÈ  ÐCorporal€Teresa€Gray,€a€records€keeper€for€the€Williamson€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€€TheÐ ^®  Ðcertification€procedure€is€performed€by€the€TBI€and€is€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€38„6„103.€€TheÐ D”  Ðdefendant€argues€that€his€constitutional€right€to€confrontation€was€violated€because€the€TBI€officialÐ *z  Ðwho€performed€the€certification€tests€did€not€testify.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€this€effectivelyÐ ` Ðallowed€the€state€to€prove€an€essential€element€of€Ô#†¼P»XX>¼É#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔDUI€by€test€results€introduced€through€a€witnessÐ öF Ðother€than€the€one€who€conducted€the€test.€€We€disagree.Ð Ü, ÐÌà  àInitially,€we€note€that€the€state€used€Corporal€Grayððs€testimony€to€satisfy€one€of€the€six€Ð ¨ø ÐòòSensingóó€foundational€requirements,€not€to€establish€an€essential€element€of€the€offense.€€MoreÐ ŽÞ Ðimportantly,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€that€the€TBI€documents€certifying€theÐ tÄ Ðbreath€alcohol€testing€machines€are€public€records€under€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(8).€€òòSensingóó,€843Ð Zª ÐS.W.2d€at€416.€€Public€records€are€admissible€ð ð[u]nless€the€source€of€information€or€the€method€orÐ @ Ðcircumstances€of€preparation€indicate€lack€of€trustworthiness.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€803(8).€€The€recordÐ &v Ðin€this€case€contains€no€evidence€that€the€certification€documents€were€prepared€in€an€untrustworthyÐ  \ Ðmanner.€€Moreover,€although€the€public€records€exception€does€not€even€require€that€the€record€beÐ òB Ðintroduced€through€the€testimony€of€a€ð ðcustodian€or€other€qualified€witness,ðð€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€842Ð Ø( ÐS.W.2d€261,€264„65€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1992),€òòSensingóó€contemplates€that€the€state€could€introduceÐ ¾ Ðcertification€documents€through€the€testimony€of€the€officer€who€administered€the€breath€test.€Ð ¤ô ÐòòÔ_ÔKorsakovÔ_Ôóó,€slip€op.€at€8€(citing€òòSensingòòóóóó,€843€S.W.2d€at€416)).òòòòóóóó€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€it€was€notÐ Š Ú Ðerror€to€allow€the€breath€alcohol€machineððs€Ô#†¼P»XX>¼eÌ#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔcertification€documents€to€be€introduced€through€theÐ p!À  Ðtestimony€of€a€records€keeper.€òòóóÐ V"¦! Ðà  àÌòòóóÔ#†¼P»XX>¼—Ó#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔò òÓ  ÓVII.€€CONCLUSIONÐ "$r# Ðó óÓ  ÓÌà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ î%>!% Ðin€finding€the€breath€test€operator€unavailable€and€in€allowing€his€videotaped€former€testimony.Ð Ô&$"& ÐBecause€the€breath€alcohol€test€result€should€have€been€excluded,€we€reverse€the€judgment€ofÐ º' #' Ðconviction€and€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial.Ð  (ð#( ÐÔ#†¼P»XX>¼oÔ#Ôò òó óÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 8,ˆ', Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOSEPH€M.€Ô_ÔTIPTONÔ_Ô,€JUDGEÔ#†¼P»XX>¼ Ö#ÔÔ‡X>¼X»¼PÔÐ ° ÐÌÔ#†¼P»XX>¼ý×#Ô