ÿWPC„  !}S0P€¨Š®ÀÇÎUb ¬,ºUÜÍœ•GŸè>Æbò²ºjþ\hr¿'l=Oƒ;ʤ—>u*³–x¢xYýÝó¦å7¿…ÐÆ`].˜-¥NËuBnèÈP-LœQ÷2!ÙÕ}ÏR=ÀU·ÍÃ%õÈ^'gÐ_ïuäžY<=hX&_¾Œ¿NÙŠg¦cݬ£CØzYžÇòÁ™‚?jå⦖3Ðõ¤ögrÁ:ÝËdãôFxWàšÛPvI„˜Öô›BÚú–Ýcý ”VÔåiª»FE3=Äö4Ec6˜Þ P‡æ€ÑyB*R¿öbdƒù07„ñGk«'œ&èúé‡]³dé‘b«åÙÇDû'‰¼ð=©›ÛàlKïO¾S- z{,Ù)Åð,K¨N1|™jÇ"â±éäëÄ…€DÖ\ÍÞ¾ºN×"ûŒ9jwì=MãYçîÎÖ§âñ|·6†¦öLâÝ ·iWms±6÷2‹¬/\4õM`\}G-dÛµPé„ŒS ¸Ú+4¸–Ë aŸÍüyè\鳑s½¨y–'¨^g‹£$»r“ù˜§}^šîS÷!'ü§ÿ—nâïOmGùÿüÐJ&…¶™¶*# LU>W %• 0í›UBˆ4ÊÞn­íU:šfÔ:"Bw@d'¤U:Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë AQ ÆV 0D 0D` 0D¤ ¤ D/è B B4 D3Q ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi©eE%3|xÓ«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ ¿•ÀPÁUÂÃÄÅÆDÇÈÓ€ Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XüùXXXÔÔ€XXüùÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XüùXÔÐ  ÐÌò òOctober€6,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôȦôXXüùÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€›ÉXXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ݛѰÑÑÜ°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ XüùXXXÔÑ7€ üù XXdæXXdÈ7ÑñÈñœßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` ttx$Xð Õrß›ñÈñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@~~%DàAT€KNOXVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€JUNE€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellee,€à h àà À à)à  àNo.€03C01„9710„CR„00438Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€Greene€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€James€E.€Beckner,€Judge€€€€€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌHASSON€WALLER,à h àà À à)à  à(Certified€question€of€law)Ð h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À à)Ð 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð æÞ ÐÌRobert€C.€Newtonà  àà h àà À àà  àJohn€Knox€Walkup€Ð ²ª Ð900€Anderson€Streetà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ˜ ÐBristol,€TN€37620à  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÐ ~v Ѐ€€€€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àClinton€J.€MorganÐ d\ Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€Ï€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€€€€€à Ð àà (# àÐ 0 ( Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àC.€Berkeley€Bell,€Jr.Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àEric€ChristiansenÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à109€South€Main€StreetÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGreeneville,€TN€37743ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ >:639 ÐÓÓò òòòÓ  ÓO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÐ  ÐÓMÓÌà ¸ àThe€defendant,€Hasson€Waller,€was€convicted€upon€his€pleas€of€guilty€inÏthe€Greene€County€Criminal€Court€of€the€offenses€of€possession€with€intent€to€sellÏmarijuana,€a€Class€E€felony,€and€possession€of€a€firearm€in€the€commission€of€a€felony,Ïa€Class€E€felony.€€The€defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€toÏconcurrent€sentences€of€one€year,€one€hundred€ten€days€to€be€served€in€the€county€jailÏand€the€remainder€on€probation.€€He€was€also€fined€two€thousand€dollars.€€TheÏdefendant€appeals€as€of€right€upon€a€certified€question€of€law€that€is€dispositive€of€thisÏcase.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€3(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€37(b).€Ð @8 ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€suppressÏthe€contraband€found€as€the€result€of€a€search,€conducted€after€he€was€placed€inÏcustody,€of€the€cars€over€which€he€asserted€ownership.€€The€trial€court€found€that€theÏsearch€of€the€cars€did€not€violate€the€defendantððs€rights€under€the€Fourth€Amendment€ofÏthe€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€1,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏbecause€the€defendant€consented€to€the€search€and€the€police€had€probable€cause€toÏarrest€the€defendant.€€The€state€contends€that€the€appeal€does€not€present€a€properlyÏcertified€question€of€law€and€that,€in€any€event,€the€trial€court's€findings€are€correct.€œñÂñ€ñÂñWe›Ïconclude€that€the€defendant's€Fourth€Amendment€rights€were€not€violated€and€affirmÏthe€decision€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€following€facts€were€introduced€during€the€motion€to€suppressÏhearing.€€On€August€16,€1996,€the€defendant€and€his€cousin,€Eric€Waller,€arrived€atÏMalone's€Wrecker€Service€in€a€red€Ford€Escort€to€pick€up€a€black€Nissan€that€had€beenÏrepaired.€€The€defendant€wanted€to€test€drive€the€car€before€paying€for€it,€but€DonÏMalone,€the€owner€of€the€wrecker€service,€would€not€let€the€men€leave€with€the€carÏwithout€paying€for€it.€€Mr.€Malone€offered€to€accompany€them€on€the€test€drive,€but€theÐ ˜706 Ðdefendant€argued€that€he€did€not€want€him€along€for€the€test€drive.€€A€heated€argumentÏensued,€and€the€police€were€called.ÌÌà ¸ àñ½ñœñ½ñGreenevilleñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€Police€Officer€Pat€Hankins€and€an€auxiliary€officer€respondedÏto€a€request€from€Officer€ñ½ñœñ½ñCrum,€who€was€already€at€the€scene,ñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€to€assist€with€aÏdisturbance€at€the€wrecker€service.€€Officer€Hankins€testified€that€when€he€arrived€at€theÏwrecker€service,€he€saw€the€defendant€in€a€heated€discussion€with€the€owner€andÏOfficer€Crum.€€Officer€Hankins€testified€that€before€Officer€Crum€left€to€respond€toÏanother€call,€ñ½ñœñ½ñOfficer€Crumñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€told€him€that€he€saw€Eric€Waller€leave€in€the€red€car€andÏreturn€a€short€time€later€on€foot.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€dispute€was€resolved€when€the€defendant€agreed€to€allow€Mr.€MaloneÏto€accompany€Eric€Waller€on€the€test€drive.€€Officer€Hankins€testified€that€while€the€twoÏwere€out€on€the€test€drive,€he€spoke€with€the€defendant€in€an€attempt€to€ñ½ñœñ½ñcalmñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€theÏsituation.€€He€testified€that€the€defendant€said€that€the€car€broke€down€after€returningÏfrom€Knoxville€where€he€had€visited€his€girlfriend.ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Hankins€testified€that€after€Mr.€Malone€and€Eric€Waller€returnedÏfrom€the€test€drive,€Mr.€Malone€told€him€that€he€spotted€the€red€car€a€quarter„mile€downÏthe€road.€€The€officer€said€that€he€then€asked€Eric€Waller€where€he€had€been€when€theÏcar€broke€down.€€He€stated€that€Eric€Waller€told€him€that€they€had€been€to€a€basketballÏgame€in€Knoxville.ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Hankins€testified€that€he€asked€the€defendant€and€Eric€Waller€forÏñ½ñœñ½ñidentification,ñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€and€they€gave€him€their€driver's€licenses.€€He€said€that€he€wanted€toÏcheck€discreetly€for€outstanding€ñ½ñœñ½ñwarrants,ñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€but€he€could€not€because€they€were€standingÏnext€to€him.€€He€testified€ñ½ñœñ½ñthatñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€in€order€to€have€some€privacy,€he€told€them€that€he€had€toÏrespond€to€a€call€at€a€ñ½ñœñ½ñmarketñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€down€the€road.€€While€at€the€market€and€talking€to€theÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññ½ñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  ÑÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññ½ñdispatcher€on€the€telephone,€he€said€that€his€partner,€the€auxiliary€officer,€saw€theÏdefendant€and€Eric€Waller€drive€away€from€the€wrecker€service.€€The€officers€drove€toÏwhere€the€red€car€was€reported€to€have€been€parked€and€saw€the€defendant€in€theÏblack€car€and€Eric€Waller€in€the€red€car.€ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Hankins€testified€that€he€asked€Eric€Waller€to€get€out€of€the€redÏcar.€€He€said€that€he€then€handcuffed€Waller,€told€him€that€he€was€not€under€arrest,€andÏput€ñ½ñœñ½ñhim€intoñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€the€back€of€his€police€cruiser.€€Officer€Hankins€then€approached€theÏdefendant,€asked€him€to€get€out€of€the€black€car,€handcuffed€him,€told€him€that€he€wasÏnot€under€arrest,€and€put€him€in€the€back€of€Officer€Crum's€cruiser,€who€had€ñ½ñœñ½ñcome€backÏtoñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€the€ñ½ñœñ½ñscene.ñ½ñ›ñ½ñÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Hankins€testified€that€he€asked€Eric€Waller€for€permission€toÏsearch€the€red€car.€€He€said€that€Eric€Waller€ñ½ñœñ½ñtold€himñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€that€the€defendant€was€the€owner.€ÏOfficer€Hankins€then€asked€the€defendant,€"Do€you€have€any€problem€if€we€look€in€theÏcar?"€to€which€the€defendant€answered€that€he€did€not.€€ñ½ñœñ½ñOfficer€Hankinsñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€said€that€he€leftÏthe€auxiliary€officer€with€the€defendant€in€case€the€defendant€wanted€to€retract€hisÏpermission€for€the€search.€€He€admitted€that€he€did€not€tell€the€defendant€that€ñ½ñœñ½ñtheÏdefendant€couldñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€stop€the€search€at€any€time.ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Hankins€testified€that€he€got€the€keys€out€of€the€ignition€of€the€redÏcar,€opened€the€trunk,€and€immediately€smelled€marijuana.€€He€stated€that€he€foundÏapproximately€six€pounds€of€marijuana€wrapped€in€a€garbage€bag.€€He€said€they€alsoÏfound€a€gun€inside€a€suitcase€in€the€ñ½ñœñ½ñtrunk.€€He€said€añ½ñ›ñ½ñ€second€gun€was€found€ñ½ñœñ½ñunderñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€theÏdriver's€seat€of€the€red€ñ½ñœñ½ñcar.€ñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€Officer€Hankins€testified€that€the€black€car€was€searched,Ïand€a€saran,€such€as€would€be€used€to€ñ½ñœñ½ñwrap€añ½ñ›ñ½ñ€ñ½ñœñ½ñcigarette,ñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€was€found€in€plain€view.€OfficerÏHankins€testified€that€after€finding€these€items,€he€called€in€a€ñ½ñœñ½ñreport,ñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€and€Eric€WallerÏand€the€defendant€were€transported€to€the€œGreeñÆñeñÆñnñÇñeñÇñville›€police€station.Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€overruled€the€defendant'sÏmotion€to€suppress€the€evidence€seized,€concluding€that€there€was€probable€cause€andÏexigent€circumstances€and€œñÃñthat€ñÃñthe›€defendant€had€consented€to€the€search.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€the€officer's€reasonable€suspicion€had€matured€to€probable€causeÏbecause€the€defendant€drove€away€after€surrendering€his€driver's€license€to€the€officer.€ÏThe€trial€court€found€exigent€circumstances€to€search€the€vehicles€because€they€wereÏmobile€and€were€subject€to€being€removed€before€a€warrant€could€be€obtained.€€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€appeal,€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€at€the€conclusion€of€aÏsuppression€hearing€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€ÏòòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€defendant€bears€the€burden€ofÐ ø Ðdemonstrating€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€court's€factual€findings.€ÏòòIdóó.€€However,€the€application€of€the€law€to€the€facts€as€determined€by€the€trial€court€is€aÐ ˜ Ðquestion€of€law€which€is€reviewed€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Yearganóó,€958€S.W.2dÐ d\ Ð626,€628„29€(Tenn.€1997).ÌÌÓ  Óò òIó óÐ È#À  ÐÓ  Óà ¸ àPreliminarily,€the€state€contends€that€the€defendant€has€failed€to€complyÏwith€the€prerequisites€for€appellate€review€of€a€certified,€dispositive€question€of€law.€€TheÏstate€argues€that€(1)€the€defendant's€question€does€not€clearly€identify€the€scope€andÏlimits€of€the€legal€issue€that€is€reserved,€(2)€the€question€does€not€contain€the€reasonsÏrelied€upon€by€the€defendant€at€the€suppression€hearing,€(3)€the€judgment€is€confusingÏand€does€not€contain€a€statement€of€the€certified€question,€and€œñÄñ(4)€ñÄñthe›€record€does€notÏcontain€all€of€the€proceedings€below€that€bear€upon€the€merits.€€With€respect€to€theÏrecord,€the€state€argues€that€the€tape€recording€and€the€transcript€of€the€conversationÏbetween€the€defendant€and€the€police€officer€have€not€been€provided€with€the€record.Ìâ âÐ Ì5Ä.4 Ðà ¸ àIn€pertinent€part,€Rule€37(b),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€provides€for€an€appeal€in€aÏâ âcriminal€case€under€the€following€circumstances:ÌÓÓà0 ¸ à(2)€Upon€a€plea€of€guilty€or€nolo€contendere€if:Ð ¸ €%¸ €% Ðà0 ¸ àÐ ¸ €%¸ €% ÐÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  à(i)€defendant€entered€into€a€plea€agreementÏunder€Rule€11(e)€but€explicitly€reserved€with€theÏconsent€of€the€State€and€of€the€court€the€right€to€appealÏa€certified€question€of€law€that€is€dispositive€of€the€case;€ÏorÐ ¸ x¸ x Ðà0 ¸ àÐ ¸ €%¸ €% Ðà0 ¸ àà  à.€.€.Ð ¸ €%¸ €% Ðà0 ¸ àÐ ¸ €%¸ €% Ðà8 ¸ àà  à(iv)€defendant€explicitly€reserved€with€the€consentÏof€the€court€the€right€to€appeal€a€certified€question€ofÏlaw€that€is€dispositive€of€the€case.€€Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðà0 ¸ àÐ ¸ €%¸ €% ÐÓÓÓ  ÓThe€1997€Advisory€Commission€ñ½ñœñ½ñCommentñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€to€this€Rule€ñ½ñœñ½ñstatesñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€the€following:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àIn€order€for€an€attorney€to€perfect€an€appeal€underÏeither€of€these€two€(2)€sections,€the€attorney€must€beÏcertain€that€the€application€fully€comports€with€theÏrequirements€for€this€type€of€an€appeal€as€set€forth€byÏthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€its€decision€of€òòStateÐ ˜ Ðv.€Prestonóó,€759€S.W.2d€647€(Tenn.€1988).€€Failure€toÐ ~v Ðfollow€the€dictates€of€the€Preston€decision€could€resultÏin€the€dismissal€of€the€appeal.Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðà0 ¸ àÐ ¸ €%¸ €% ÐÓÓÓ  ÓRule€3(b),€T.R.A.P.,€provides€that€an€appeal€as€of€right€by€a€defendant€lies€from€aÏjudgment€of€conviction€upon€a€guilty€plea€"if€the€defendant€entered€into€a€pleaÏagreement€but€explicitly€reserved€with€the€consent€of€the€state€and€the€trial€court€theÏright€to€appeal€a€certified€question€of€law€dispositive€of€the€action."ÌÌà ¸ àOur€supreme€court€addressed€the€proper€procedure€for€reserving€aÏcertified€question€of€law€in€òòState€v.€Prestonóó,€759€S.W.2d€647,€650€(Tenn.€1988).€Ð Þ+Ö$) ÐòòPrestonóó€requires€that€the€certified€question€"be€so€stated€as€to€clearly€identify€the€scopeÐ ª-¢&+ Ðand€the€limits€of€the€legal€issue€reserved."€€òòIdóó.€€For€issues€involving€the€validity€ofÐ v/n(- Ðsearches,€"the€reasons€relied€upon€by€defendant€in€the€trial€court€at€the€suppressionÏhearing€must€be€identified€in€the€statement€of€the€certified€question."€€òòIdóó.€€Finally,€"theÐ 3,1 Ðorder€must€state€that€the€certified€question€was€expressly€reserved€as€part€of€the€pleaÏâ âagreement,€that€the€State€and€the€trial€judge€consented€to€the€reservation€and€that€theÐ ¦6ž/5 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÄñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÄññ½ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ½ñState€and€the€trial€judge€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€question€is€dispositive€of€the€case."€ÏñÄñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñÄññ½ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ½ñòòIdóó.€€Ð ÔÌ Ðâ âÌà ¸ àñ½ñœñ½ñTheñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€certification€order€states€as€follows:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àà  àThe€State€and€the€Defendant€affirm€that€theÏDefendant,€pursuant€ñ½ñœñ½ñto€[Tenn.€R.€œCrim.ñÅñ€P.ñÅñ›€]€ñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€37(b)(2),Ïhas€explicitly€reserved€with€the€express€consent€of€theÏState€certified€question(s)€of€law€with€regard€to€theÏñ½ñœñ½ñDefendant'sñ½ñ›œ›ñ½ñ€ñ½ñœñ½ñ[detention]€byñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€the€ñ½ñœñ½ñGreenevilleñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€PoliceÏofficers€and€subsequent€search€of€his€automobiles€andÏthe€seizure€of€evidence€subject€to€this€indictment.€€TheÏquestion€of€law€to€be€certified€for€review€is€as€follows:Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðà0 ¸ àÐ ¸ €%¸ €% Ðà8 ¸ àà8¸ x¸ xàà h àDid€the€trial€court€err€in€notÏsuppressing€any€and€all€evidence€seizedÏfrom€the€defendant's€automobiles€on€orÏabout€August€16,€1996€in€the€initialÏdetention€of€the€defendant€and€hisÏsubsequent€consent€to€search€hisÏautomobiles€violated€the€defendant'sÏrights€under€the€Fourth€Amendment€of€theÏUnited€States€Constitution€and€Article€1,ÏSection€7€of€the€Constitution€ofÏTennessee,€being€an€unreasonableÏseizure€of€his€person€and€an€unlawfulÏsearch€of€his€automobiles?Ð    Ðà0 ¸ àÐ ¸ €%¸ €% Ðà8 ¸ àPursuant€to€òòState€v.€Prestonóó,€759€S.W.2d€647€(Tenn.Ð â"Ú Ð1988),€the€State,€the€Defendant,€with€express€approvalÏof€the€Court.Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðà0 ¸ àÐ ¸ €%¸ €% Ðà8 ¸ àà  àThe€State€and€this€Honorable€Court€herebyÏexpressly€consent€to€the€reservation€of€this€certifiedÏquestion€of€law.€€Further,€the€State€and€this€HonorableÏCourt€aver€and€affirm€that€they€are€of€the€opinion€thatÏthis€question€is€dispositive€of€the€case.€€Specifically,€thisÏCourt,€the€State,€and€Defendant€affirm€that€if€theÏAppellate€Court€finds€in€the€Defendant's€favor€withÏregard€to€this€certified€question,€then€the€subjectÏprosecution€must€be€dismissed.Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðà0 ¸ àÐ ¸ €%¸ €% ÐÓÓÓ  ÓUnquestionably,€the€order€could€have€and€should€have€been€more€detailed.€€However,Ïwe€do€not€view€it€to€be€so€deficient€as€to€require€a€dismissal€of€the€defendant's€appeal.€ÏThe€order€states€the€general€claim€by€the€defendant€relative€to€his€detention€and€searchÏof€his€vehicles.€€It€also€states€that€the€right€to€appeal€a€certified€question€of€law€that€isÏdispositive€of€the€case€was€explicitly€reserved€with€the€consent€of€the€state€and€ñ½ñœñ½ñthe€trialñ½ñ›ñ½ñÏcourt.€€Ð r8j17 Їà ¸ àñ½ñœñ½ñInñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€òòPrestonóó,€our€supreme€court€stated€that€"the€reasons€relied€upon€...Ð  Ðmust€be€identified."€€759€S.W.2d€at€650.€€ñ½ñœñ½ñIn€the€present€case,€theñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€certified€questionÏgives€as€reasons€for€the€violation€of€the€defendant's€rights€under€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€and€the€Tennessee€Constitution€the€"unreasonable€seizure€of€his€personÏand€an€unlawful€search€of€his€automobile."€€In€his€motion€to€suppress,€the€defendantÏgave€the€same€ñ½ñœñ½ñreasonsñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€but€provided€additional€ñ½ñœñ½ñdetail,€including€(1)ñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€that€the€detentionÏwas€not€based€on€probable€cause€or€the€commission€of€a€criminal€offense€in€theÏpresence€of€the€police€ñ½ñœñ½ñofficers,€(2)ñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€that€the€search€was€without€a€warrant€or€exigentÏcircumstances,€ñ½ñœñ½ñ(3)€thatñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€the€search€was€without€probable€cause,€ñ½ñœñ½ñ(4)€thatñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€the€searchÏviolated€the€defendant's€expectation€of€privacy,€ñ½ñœñ½ñand€(5)€thatñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€there€was€not€effectiveÏconsent€given€for€the€search€given€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€€ÌÌà ¸ àIdeally,€the€certified€question€should€have€given€the€detailed€reasons€uponÏwhich€the€defendant€relied.€€However,€we€recognize€that€the€question€is€just€that€andÏnot€a€brief€presented€to€the€court.€€The€certified€question€contains€a€description€of€theÏconduct€that€the€defendant€claims€violated€his€rights€and€provides€the€reason€that€theÏconduct€violated€his€rights.€€We€conclude€that€the€question€is€sufficient€to€identify€theÏñ½ñœñ½ñscopeñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€of€our€review.ÌÌà ¸ àWith€respect€to€what€the€state€calls€the€confusing€judgment,€we€note€thatÏthe€record€reflects€that€the€defendant's€motion€to€suppress€was€heard€and€denied€onÏJanuary€6,€1997.€€The€technical€record€contains€an€order€certifying€the€question€of€lawÏand€stating€that€it€is€an€addendum€to€the€judgment€order.€€The€addendum€states€that€itÏwas€entered€on€January€24,€ñ½ñœñ½ñ1997.€ñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€ñ½ñœñ½ñHowever,ñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€the€clerk€stamped€it€as€filed€on€May€19,Ï1997.€€We€believe€the€date€typed€in€the€addendum€was€erroneously€retained€duringÏword€processing€and€can€be€safely€ignored.€€The€defendant€entered€his€guilty€pleas€andÏreceived€judgment€on€May€19,€1997,€the€same€day€that€the€addendum€was€filed.€€WeÏconclude€the€judgment€order€contains€a€statement€of€the€certified€question.Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àFinally,€with€respect€to€the€record€being€incomplete,€we€note€that€the€trialÏcourt€relied€on€the€recorded€conversation€between€Officer€Hankins€and€the€defendant€inÏorder€to€determine€that€consent€was€given€for€the€search.€€Neither€this€tape€nor€itsÏtranscript€is€part€of€the€record€brought€to€this€court.€€The€òòPrestonóó€court€stated€that€theÐ l d Ðdefendant€has€the€burden€of€ensuring€that€"the€record€brought€to€the€appellate€courtÏcontains€all€of€the€proceedings€below€that€bear€upon€whether€the€certified€question€ofÏlaw€is€dispositive€and€the€merits€of€the€question€certified."€€759€S.W.2d€at€650.€ÏHowever,€we€believe€that€the€certified€question€is€dispositive€and€can€be€decided€on€itsÏmerits€without€resorting€to€details€of€the€recorded€conversation.ÌÌÓ  Óò òIIó óÐ ø ÐÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€defendant€contends€that€he€was€unlawfully€detained€through€an€illegalÏarrest€by€the€police.€€He€asserts€that€the€evidence€obtained€by€the€search€should€beÏsuppressed€because€the€search€was€the€result€of€ñ½ñœñ½ñanñ½ñ›ñ½ññ½ññ½ñ€illegal€arrest€and€the€consent€givenÏwas€coerced€given€the€circumstances€of€the€illegal€arrest.€€The€defendant€argues€that€ñ¸ñœñ¸ñÏñ½ñœñ½ñwhen€he€wasñ½ñ›ñ½ññ½ññ½ñ€handcuffed€and€placed€in€the€police€ñ½ñœñ½ñcruiser,ñ½ñ›ñ½ññ½ññ½ñ€there€was€not€probable€causeÏto€arrest€him.€€The€state€contends€that€there€was€probable€cause€to€detain€theÏdefendant€and€that€he€voluntarily€gave€effective€consent.ÌÌà ¸ àWhile€operating€a€motor€vehicle,€the€driver€is€required€to€have€in€hisÏimmediate€possession€a€valid€operator's€license.€€T.C.A.€ðð€55„50„351.€€Failure€to€haveÏpossession€of€an€operator's€license€is€a€Class€C€ñ½ñœñ½ñmisdemeanor,ñ½ñ›ñ½ññ½ññ½ñ€and€any€lawÏenforcement€officer€is€empowered€ñ½ñœñ½ñtoñ¹ñ€effect›€theñ¹ññ½ñ›ñ½ññ½ññ½ñ€ñ½ñœñ½ñarrestñºñ€ofñºññ½ñ›ñ½ññ½ññ½ñ€any€person€found€violating€this€statute.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð œ.”', ÐÌà ¸ àOfficer€Hankins€testified€that€he€thought€that€the€defendant€and€EricÏWaller€were€ñ½ñœñ½ññ»ñð ðñ»ñeitherñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€wanted€or€ñ½ñœñ½ññ¼ñ"ñ¼ñupñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€to€something€that€they€shouldn't€be."€€This€suspicion€œñ¿ñÌÐ  Ì5Ä.4 Ðñ¿ññÁñÌñÁñwas›€based€on€hearing€that€Eric€Waller€ñ½ñœñ½ñmovedñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€the€red€car,€knowing€that€their€storiesÏconflicted,€and€seeing€that€the€defendant€left€the€wrecker€service€without€his€driver'sÏlicense€and€drove€to€the€red€car.€€Officer€Hankins€admitted€that€at€the€time€he€took€theirÏdriver's€ñ½ñœñ½ñlicenses,ñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€the€two€had€not€committed€any€crimes.€€However,€when€OfficerÏHankins€ñ½ñœñ½ñsawñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€the€ñ½ñœñ½ñdefendantñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€ñ½ñœñ½ñdriveñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€away€from€the€wrecker€service,€he€had€probableÏcause€to€arrest€the€defendant€for€driving€without€having€immediate€possession€of€hisÏdriver's€license.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€55„50„351.€€Ð œ”  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€analysis€of€any€warrantless€search€must€begin€with€the€propositionÏthat€such€searches€are€per€se€unreasonable€under€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€ThisÏprinciple€against€warrantless€searches€is€subject€only€to€a€few€specifically€establishedÏand€well„delineated€ñ½ñœñ½ñexceptions.€€òòSeeóóñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€òòKatz€v.€United€Statesóó,€389€U.S.€347,€357,€88€S.Ð d\ ÐCt.€507,€514€(1967);€òòState€v.€Tyleróó,€598€S.W.2d€798,€801€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€Ð 0 ( ÐBefore€the€fruits€of€a€warrantless€search€are€admissible€as€evidence,€the€state€mustÏestablish€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€search€falls€into€one€of€theÏnarrowly€drawn€exceptions€to€the€warrant€requirement.€€òòState€v.€Shawóó,€603€S.W.2d€741,Ð ”%Œ" Ð742€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).ÌÌà ¸ àñ½ñœñ½ñAñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€ñ½ñœñ½ñwarrant€is€not€needed€when€there€is€añ½ñ›ñ½ñ€consent€ñ½ñœñ½ñthatñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€is€"unequivocal,Ïspecific,€intelligently€given,€and€uncontaminated€by€duress€or€coercion."€€òòState€v.Ð Ä,¼%* ÐBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,€547€(Tenn.€1992).€€Thus,€the€question€becomes€whether€theÐ .ˆ', Ðconsent€to€the€search€in€this€case€was€given€ñ½ñœñ½ñvoluntarily,€a€question€that€is€determinedÏby€examining€the€facts.ñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€€ñ½ñœñ½ñòòStateñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€v.€Jacksonóó,€889€S.W.2d€219,€221€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð (2 +0 Ð1993).ÌÌà ¸ àœñ¾ñÐ  Œ7„06 Ðñ¾ññÀñà ¸ àñÀñIn›€this€case,€the€defendant€was€in€custody€in€the€backseat€of€a€policeÏcruiser.€€Officer€Hankins€asked€the€defendant,€"Do€you€have€any€problem€if€we€look€inÏthe€car?"€€The€defendant€answered€that€he€did€not.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€factsÏshowed€that€the€consent€was€freely€ñ½ñœñ½ñgiven.ñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€€The€defendant€relies€on€the€assertion€thatÏthe€arrest€was€ñ½ñœñ½ñunlawful,ñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€and€ñ½ñœñ½ñtherefore,ñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€the€consent€was€not€valid.€€Because€we€haveÏconcluded€that€the€arrest€was€ñ½ñœñ½ñbasedñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€upon€probable€cause,€we€conclude€that€theÏsearch,€based€upon€the€consent€given€after€a€valid€arrest,€was€reasonable€and€did€notÏviolate€the€defendant's€Fourth€Amendment€rights.ÌÌÓE+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°X` ˜XEÓà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€theÏñ½ñœñ½ñjudgmentsñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€of€conviction€ñ½ñœñ½ñareñ½ñ›ñ½ñ€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à______________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge€Ì