WPCW5 IIN#8Eiɉ9 t2+ nKf +:F<cR- чTDeC~(,3 aPA=}hj8ξ}u񒓙*0bJqR'*=4۟9X N2}o +8j'0m<:3hH$ʙ-J*-{?B")6Oċ1E8xЗM1MBƚ:,>3jٲSK͹S΃OaPƗPӷR,?@lO8_@H+YBG1֞B&ʘC=8IuD8 ʼn:â!Ъ{.U*ckTKP?f0C/'LbT?]JdVSW\e,ud8nDE n:0bAB\uBgkʀ&Ob/s8Rq"Caam# % 0 UNE ^ w z  4   m +   }CN E 0 0D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0cb< 0D 0! 0! 0" 0# 0x$ 0H% 0& 0& 0' 0j( 0E) 0* 0* 0+ 0, 0_- 0(. 0................. 0//// B00 00 D5_1 D-1 0K11 AS 2_2 0%3 0D3 A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 AY44 0F5HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(`U$..8XXdd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularlT)  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptsM)+003|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  R$      1  XXԀ  _ XXOurholdingislimitedtothefactsandissuepresentedinthisappeal.Weherebyexpresslyreservedecision  ontheissueoftheproperstandardofappellatereviewofavideotapedtrialrecorduntilthatissueissquarelypresented.#XX #  R$      2  XXԀ  __ XXSeeStatev.Kvam,336N.W.2d525,526(Minn.1983)(_finding_Ԁprobablecausewherepoliceofficersaw  defendantscar pulloutoftheparkinglot...kindoffastandmakeaverywiderightturnontoHighway3  southbound...sawanothersouthboundcar,aRabbit,pulloverontotheshouldertoavoidbeinghitandsawdefendant's ` carpullcompletelyintothenorthboundlane,whereitremainedforaboutablockbeforegettingbackintotheappropriate $t southboundlane...[andobserveddefendantsvehicle]weavingwithinitslane);f  g seealsof  g ԀPeople_v._ԀPerez,221Cal. 8 Rptr.776,776(Cal.Ct.App.1985)(_finding_Ԁprobablecausewherepoliceofficersaw pronouncedweavingtotheleft  andrightforaboutthreequartersofamile);Statev.Tompkins,507N.W.2d736,737(IowaCt.App.1993)(_finding_ p  probablecausewherepoliceofficer observeddefendantscarweavefromthecenterlinetotherightsideboundary 4  severaltimesf  );State_v._ԀField,847P.2d1280,128182(Kan.1993)(findingprobablecausewheredefendantsvehicle  H  wasweavingfromthemiddleofitslanetotheoutsideofthelane,totheinsideofthelaneandbacktothemiddle    withinoneblockandweavethreeadditionaltimesoverthreemoreblocksf  g ).#XX #2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  (#$  0  2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2   2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  - -2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  (|I2$ U!.8XXdd8         0  XXԀ d(|3Q$ U!.8XXdd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Q$ U!.8XXdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKKXlO  , deUU(n$ (  1  ) U!.8XXdd8     _F  @ WFINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#FW#Ԉ & f  @"May2000Session L XXFf  g #FXX#  STATEOFTENNESSEEv.GUY_BINETTE_XXF  J f  g f  g @@  Appealf  g Ԁf  g ByPermissionf  g Ԁf  g fromthef  g f  g CourtofCriminalAppeals  J @@ f  g f  g CriminalCourtforHamiltonCounty  6 @@ No.216632RebeccaStern,Judge#FXXn#  " f  g f  g f  g @*f  g Ԉ@*AV) ` dE<` A߈ 4  @  XXFNo.E199800236SCR11CD #FXX#XXFԄFiledOctober5,_2000_Ԉ W  f  g    `     h      p   f  g AV) ` dE<` A 3     `     h      p   #FXX#f  XXFThisisanappealfromtheCriminalCourtforHamiltonCountyg ,f  g Ԁwhichoverruledthedefendants  motiontosuppressallevidenceobtainedbytheStateafterthedefendantwasstoppedbyapolice  officeronsuspicionofdrivingwhileundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant.Thedefendantentereda  conditionalpleaofguiltyandreservedf  forappealf  g asa_dispositive_Ԁquestionoflawg Ԁtheissueofthe  lawfulnessofthestop.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourtsjudgmentf  .Tf  g he z defendantthereaftersought,f  g ԀandthisCourtgrantedf  g ,f  g Ԁpermissiontoappealonthefollowingissue: f whetherf  reasonablesuspicion,basedonf  g specificand_articulable_Ԁfactsg ,f  g Ԁexistedtoauthorizeastopof R thedefendantsvehicle.f  g ԀHavingreviewedthef  g f  g recordf  g Ԁinthiscase,wef  g f  g holdf  g Ԁthattheevidencedoesnot > supportthetrialcourtsfindingthatthepoliceofficeractedwithreasonablesuspicionwhenhe *z stoppedthedefendant.Accordingly,thejudgmentf  g Ԁoff  g ԀtheCourtofCriminalAppealsg f  g isf  g Ԁreversed,the f convictionasenteredbythetrialcourtisvacated,andthechargeofdrivingwhileundertheinfluence R ofanintoxicantisdismissed. >  f  g @ f  g Tenn.R.App.P.11f  g ԀAppealbyPermissionf  g ;Judgmentofthef  g Ԉ   @  f  g CourtofCriminalAppealsReversedf  g f  g ;CaseDismissedf  g  !  f  WilliamM.f  g Barker,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.Rileyf  g Anderson,C.J.,and #" f  FrankF.f  g _Drowota_,g III,and_Adolpho_ԀA.f  g Birchg ,Jr.f  g ,JJ.,joined.g JaniceM.f  g Holder,J.f  g ,fileda v$# dissentingopinion. b% $ JerryS.Sloan,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Guy_Binette_. :'"& PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporterg ;MichaelE.Mooref  g ,f  g ԀSolicitorGeneral;f  g ԀandEllenH. )b$( Pollack,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. )N%) JerryH.Summers,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheamicuscuriae,Summers&Wyatt,P.C.  +&'+ _   `     h   @66' OPINION   f  g f    OntheeveningofFebruary13,1997,GuyBinettewasdrivinginChattanooga,Tennessee,  whenhewasstoppedbyf  g Officerf  g GerryDavisf  g f  g Ԁoff  g ԀtheChattanoogaPoliceDepartment.f  g Priortothe x stop,OfficerDavisfollowedBinetteforseveralminutesandvideotapedBinettesdriving.During d thistime,theofficermadeseveralstatementsthatwererecordedontheaudioportionofthetape P  regardingwhatheconsideredtobedrivingerrorsmadebyBinette.HecommentedthatBinettehad <   alreadycrossedtheyellowlinetwice,observedthat thevehiclejustmadeahardswerve,and ( x notedthatBinette,atonepoint,was runningabout60milesperhourina45mileperhourzone.  d Baseduponhisobservations,f  g OfficerDavisf  g f  g decidedtostopBinetteandsubsequentlyarresthim.  P  f  g   Afterhewasindictedfordrivingundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant,Binettefiledamotion (  tosuppressallevidencegainedbytheStateg f  g followingthestopf  g .Hearguedthattherewasno   reasonablesuspicionbaseduponarticulablefactsforaninvestigativestop.Atthesuppression   hearing,f  g f  g Binettetestifiedanddeniedmakingthedrivingerrorsallegedbytheofficer.Although   OfficerDavisdidnottestifyatthehearing,thevideotapedrecordingwasintroducedwithout   objection.Basingitsdecisionsolelyonthevisualportionofthevideotapeevidencef  g ,thecourt t reachedthefollowingconclusion: `  X Xf  g f  g [T]herewasweavingwithinthelines,fairlysignificantweavingaboutthetimethe 8 videostartedupuntilthetime[Binette]turnedandthelightswereactivated,soIdo $t findthattherewasarticulablesuspicionforthestopinthiscaseandsoIwilloverrule ` themotiontosuppress. L  X Xf  g f  g f  g   PursuanttoTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure37(b)(2)(iv),Binetteenteredaconditional $ pleaofguiltyandreservedasadispositivequestionoflawforappealtheissueofthelawfulnessof  thestop.Thepleaagreementprovidedforasentenceofelevenmonthsandtwentyninedaysin  countyjail,suspendedafterservingfortyeighthoursinjail;afineof$360;asuspensionofBinettes  drivingprivilegesinTennessee;andarequirementthatBinetteattendaDUIschool.Thecourt  sentencedBinettepursuanttotheagreementandissuedanorderholdingthesentenceinabeyance p pendingresolutionofBinettesappeal.f  g f  g Ԁf  g ԀTheCourtofCriminalAppealsf  g Ԁreviewedthevideotapeand \  amajorityf  g Ԁaffirmedthetrialcourtsjudgmentg ,findingthatBinettedid swerveandweavewithin H! hislanef  g .Binettethensought,andthisCourtgranted,permissiontoappealonthefollowingissue: 4"  whetherf  g reasonablesuspicionbasedonf  g specificandarticulablefactsexistedtoauthorizeastopof  #p! Binettesvehicle.  $\" f  g   f  g DISCUSSION  %4!$   f  g @mm f  g I.StandardofReview  & "% f  g   f  g   InStatev.Odom,928S.W.2d18(Tenn.1996),thisCourtexaminedthedifferentstandards (#' ofappellatereviewthenusedbyTennesseecourtstoevaluateatrialcourtsfindingsoffactand )$( conclusionsoflawonsuppressionissues.TheCourtobservedthatourappellatecourtsgenerally |*%) appliedthreedifferentstandardsofreview:preponderanceoftheevidence,anymaterialevidence, h+&* andastandardcombiningboththepreponderanceoftheevidenceandanymaterialevidence  standards.Seeid.at2223.TheCourtresolvedthesplitamongTennesseecourtsbyadoptingthe  followingstandardforreviewofsuppressionissues:  f  X Xf  g  ` Questionsofcredibilityofthewitnesses,theweightandvalueofthe ` evidence,andresolutionofconflictsintheevidencearemattersentrustedtothetrial L  judgeasthetrieroffact.Thepartyprevailinginthetrialcourtisentitledtothe 8  strongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceadducedatthesuppressionhearingaswell $ t asallreasonableandlegitimateinferencesthatmaybedrawnfromthatevidence.So  ` longasthegreaterweightoftheevidencesupportsthetrialcourtsfindings,those  L  findingsshallbeupheld.Inotherwords,atrialcourtsfindingsoffactina  8  suppressionhearingwillbeupheldunlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise. $   X XId.at23.   f    WhileOdomiscertainlyrelevantindeterminingthequestionnowbeforethisCourt,the   Odomstandardpresupposesissuesofcredibility.Wegranttrialcourtsconsiderabledeferenceon p reviewoftheseissuesbecausesuchcourtsareuniquelypositionedtoobservethedemeanorand \ conductofwitnesses.SeeStatev.Moats,906S.W.2d431,435(Tenn.1995).Butwhenacourts H f  g findingsoffactatasuppressionhearingarebasedsolelyonevidencethatdoesnotinvolveissues 4 ofcredibilityg ,suchasthevideotapeevidenceinthiscasef  g ,therationaleunderlyingamoredeferential  p standardofreviewisnotimplicated.Consequently,wemustdeterminethestandardofreviewfor  \ atrialcourtsf  g findingg Ԁoffactonamotiontosuppresswhentheyarebasedonevidencethatdoesnot H involveissuesofcredibility. 4 f  f  g   Inthecontextofworkerscompensationcases,thisCourthasheldthat wheretheissues   involveexpertmedicaltestimonyandallthemedicalproofiscontainedintherecordby  deposition...thenthisCourtmaydrawitsownconclusionsabouttheweightandcredibilityofthat  testimony.Krickv.CityofLawrenceburg,945S.W.2d709,712(Tenn.1997).Therationale  allowinganappellatecourttoreviewsuchevidencedenovowithoutapresumptionofcorrectness l isclear:thereviewingcourtisinthesamepositionasthetrialcourtandisjustascapableof X  reviewingtheevidence.Seeid.Similarly,whenatrialcourtsfindingsoffactonamotionto D! suppressarebasedsolelyonevidencethatdoesnotinvolveissuesofcredibility,appellatecourtsare 0"  justascapabletoreviewtheevidenceanddrawtheirownconclusions.Accordingly,weholdthat #l! whenatrialcourtsfindingsoffactatasuppressionhearingarebasedonevidencethatdoesnot $X" involveissuesofcredibility,areviewingcourtmustexaminetherecorddenovowithouta $D # presumptionofcorrectness. #  1       %0!$ f  Ԁ &"%   f  g f  g @ f  g II.ApplicationofStandardofReview  '#& f   (#' f  g   WenowturnourattentiontothepreciseissuebeforetheCourt:whetherspecificand  articulablefactsexistedtoauthorizeastopofBinettesvehicle.TheFourthAmendmenttothe  UnitedStatesConstitutionprovidesthat [t]herightofthepeopletobesecure...against  unreasonablesearchesandseizures,shallnotbeviolated,andnowarrantsshallissue,butupon t probablecause.ArticleI,section7oftheTennesseeConstitutionsimilarlyprohibitsunreasonable ` searchesandseizuresandisidenticalinintentandpurposewiththeFourthAmendment.SeeSneed L  v.State,423S.W.2d857,860(Tenn.1968). Consequently,underboththefederalandstate 8  constitutions,awarrantlesssearchorseizureispresumedunreasonable,andevidencediscoveredas $ t aresultthereofissubjecttosuppressionunlesstheStatedemonstratesthatthesearchorseizurewas  ` conductedpursuanttooneofthenarrowlydefinedexceptionstothewarrantrequirement.Statev.  L  Yeargan,958S.W.2d626,629(Tenn.1997).  8  f  f  g   Oneexceptiontothewarrantrequirementexistswhenapoliceofficermakesaninvestigatory   stopbaseduponreasonablesuspicion,supportedbyspecificandarticulablefacts,thatacriminal   offensehasbeenorisabouttobecommitted.SeeTerryv.Ohio,392U.S.1,2021(1968);State   v.Bridges,963S.W.2d487,492(Tenn.1997).Uponturningonthebluelightsofavehicle,apolice   officerhasclearlyinitiatedastopandhasseizedthesubjectofthestopwithinthemeaningofthe p FourthAmendmentoftheFederalConstitutionandArticleI,section7oftheTennessee \ Constitution.SeeStatev.Pull[e]y,863S.W.2d29,30(Tenn.1993).Thus,inorderforthestopin H thiscasetobeconstitutionallyvalid,atthetimethatOfficerDavisturnedonhisvehiclesbluelights, 4 hemusthavehadreasonablesuspicion,supportedbyspecificandarticulablefacts,thatBinettehad  p f  committed,f  g orwasabouttocommitg ,f  g Ԁacriminaloffense.  \ f  f  g   Reasonablesuspicionisaparticularizedandobjectivebasisforsuspectingthesubjectofa 4 stopofcriminalactivity,seeOrnelasv.UnitedStates,517U.S.690,696(1996),anditisdetermined   byconsideringthetotalityofthecircumstancessurroundingthestop,seeAlabamav.White,496   U.S.325,330(1990).Inthiscase,theStatearguesthatthefollowingspecificandarticulablefacts  giverisetoreasonablesuspicionthatBinettewasdrivingavehiclewhileundertheinfluenceofan  intoxicant:  f  X Xf  g (1)thedefendantwastravelingonaroadinHamiltonCounty,Tennesseeatabout X  midnightonFebruary13,1997;(2)itwasnotraining,andtheweatherwasnot D! inclement;(3)therewasnoconstructionandnotrafficofanyconsequence;(4)the 0"  videotapeshowsthat]inatwominuteperiodoftime,thedefendantscarappearsto #l! touchthecenterlineatleastfourtimes...[(5)][thevideotapealsoshowsthat]the $X" defendantscarmadeasuddenswervewithinhisownlane. $D # f  XE XEf  g   AccordingtotheState,thefirstthreefacts,whichareundisputed,eliminateotheralternative &"% explanationsfortheerraticdrivingitattributestoBinette.TheStatearguesthat [w]henacar '#& weavesbackandforthseveraltimesinitsownlaneg latef  g atnightinclearweatherwithlittletraffic (#' andnoconstruction,atrainedpoliceofficermayinferfromthosefactsthatthedrivermaybedriving )$( whileintoxicated.However,ineachofthecasescitedbytheStateinwhichothercourtshave |*%) foundprobablecausetostopadriverwhowasweavingwithinasinglelaneoftraffic,thepolice h+&* officerobservedthedefendantweaveinapronouncedmannertotheoutsideandinsideboundaries  ofthelane. #  2        f  f  g   Wehaveviewedthevideotape,andweg havelistenedtotheofficersrecordednarrationof t hisobservations.Equallyascapableasthetrialcourtofreviewingthisevidence,wefindthatthe ` officersstatements,madeatthetimeoftheinvestigation,areclearlycontradictedbythevisual L  portionofthetape,andthus,wegivethemlittleweightinourdenovoreviewoftheevidence.We 8  f  g simplydonotfindanyevidenceofpronouncedweavingorhardswervingbyBinetteg f  g ,andf  g Ԁwe $ t disagreewiththeStatescontentionf  g Ԁthatthevideotapeshowsf  g ԀthatBinettetouchedthecenterlineat  ` leastfourtimes.Wenotethatf  g amajorityoff  g theCourtofCriminalAppeals,afterviewingthe  L  videotape,f  g f  g foundf  ԀonlytwoinstancesinwhichBinettesvehicletouchedthecenterline.g f  g Themajority  8  anddissentingopinionsfromthatcourtagreedthatthe weavingwasentirelywithinhislaneof $  travelandwasnotexaggerated.WeagreewiththeCourtofCriminalAppealsthatanymovement   Binettesvehiclemadef  g Ԁwithinhisownlanef  g f  g oftravelwasclearlynotexaggeratedf  g .Thenumberof   timesthatavehicletouchesthecenterlineordriftswithininalanef  Ԁisf  g Ԁnotdispositiveoftheissue   beforethisCourt.Rather,aswehavepreviouslynoted,acourtmustconsiderthetotalityofthe   circumstancesindeterminingwhetherreasonablesuspicionwaspresentatthetimeastopwas p initiated. \ f  f  g   Priortotheinitiationofthestop,thevideotapeshowsBinetteproceedingcorrectlythrough 4 anumberofintersectionsandstoplightsandmaintainingappropriatedistancesbehindthevehicles  p thathewasfollowing.g f  g Moreover,Binettewastravelingalongawindingroad!amoredifficultcourse  \ onwhichtotravelinastraightline.ContrarytowhatOfficerDavisstatedthatheobserved,wefind H thatBinettedidnotviolateanyf  g Ԁrulesoftheroadduringtheperiodinwhichthevideocamera 4 recordedhisdriving.f  ԀThevideoportionoftherecordingdoesnotreflectthatthevehiclewas   travelingatanexcessivespeed.f  g ԀAdmittedly,Binetteg f  g Ԁoccasionallydriftedf  g Ԁfromthecenterofthelane.   f  Ourlegislaturehasstatedthat [w]heneveranyroadwayhasbeendividedintotwo(2)ormore  clearlymarkedlanesfortraffic,...[a]vehicleshallbedrivenasnearlyaspracticableentirelywithin  asinglelane....Tenn.CodeAnn.558123(1)(1998)(emphasisadded). [I]ff  g Ԁfailuretofollow  aperfectvectordownthehighway...[was]sufficientreason[]tosuspectapersonofdrivingwhile l impaired,asubstantialportionofthepublicwouldbesubjecteachdaytoaninvasionoftheir X  privacy.UnitedStatesv.Lyons,7F.3d973,976(10thCir.1993).f  g f  g Likewise,if  g nhisdissenting D! opinioninthecourtbelow,JudgeJerryL.Smithemphasizedthedangeroffindingreasonable  suspicionunderthesefacts:  f  g X Xf  g Inessence...[findingreasonablesuspicion]createsa stopatwillstandardfor t policesinceitistheraremotoristindeedwhocantravelforseveralmileswithout ` occasionallyvaryingspeedunnecessarily,movinglaterallyfromtimetotimeinthe L  motorist[]sownlane,nearingthecenterlineorshoulder[,]orexhibitingsomesmall 8  imperfectioninhisorherdriving. $ t  X\ X\Statev.Binette,No.03C019802CR0075,at7n.2(Tenn.Crim.App.June28,1999)(filedat  L  Knoxville)(Smith,J.,dissenting).f  g f  g Ԁ  8    TheCourtofCriminalAppealshasrecentlyrefusedtofindthatanofficerhadreasonable   suspiciontostopadriverwhosedrivingitfoundnottobeerraticorinanywayimproper.   Explainingitsrationale,thecourtstated, WearenotwillingtoignoretheguaranteesoftheFourth   Amendmentandindirectlyholdthat[t]hewordautomobileis...atalismaninwhosepresence   theFourthAmendmentfadesawayanddisappears.Statev.Smith,21S.W.3d251(Tenn.Crim. p App.1999)(citingCoolidgev.NewHampshire,403U.S.443,46162(1971)).Weagree. \   Inconjunctionwithourfindingsbasedonthevideotape,Binettetestifiedthathedidnot 4 makethedrivingerrorsallegedbytheofficer.Althoughwegivestrongdeferencetotheconclusions  p ofthetrialcourtwhenitweighsandconsidersawitnessslive,incourttestimony,thereisno  \ explicitindicationintherecordconcerningwhetherthetrialjudgefoundBinettetobecredible. H Indeed,absolutelynoreferencewasmadetoBinettestestimony;thetrialjudgereliedentirelyon 4 herownperceptionsofwhatwasdepictedonthevideotape.Thus,evenwerewetoassumethat   Binettewasnotcredible,butseeCleekv.WalMartStores,Inc.,19S.W.3d770,775(Tenn.2000)   (assumingthecredibilityofawitnessinpartbasedontheabsenceoftrialjudgesfindingsonthe  record),weneverthelessfindthattheevidencedoesnotsupportthetrialcourtsfindings,andwe  thusreversethetrialcourtsdeterminationthattheofficerhadreasonablesuspiciontostopBinette.     `     h CONCLUSION  X    Insummary,basedonourreviewoftheentirerecordofthesuppressionhearing,weholdf  g Ԁthat 0"  theevidencedoesnotsupportthetrialcourtsfindingthatOfficerDavishadreasonablesuspicion #l! tostopBinettefordrivingwhileundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant.WhileBinettedidmove $X" laterallyattimeswithinhislanewhileoperatinghisvehicle,g f  g wefindf  g Ԁthg f  g atf  g Ԁhismovementwasnot $D # pronounced,f  g f  g andthereforedidnotgivef  g Ԁrisetoreasonablesuspicionthathewasundertheinfluence %0!$ ofanintoxicant.f  g ԀAccordingly,thejudgmentsofthetrialcourtandtheCourtofCriminalAppeals &"% denyingBinettesmotiontosuppressarereversed,theconvictionasenteredbythetrialcourtis '#& vacated,andthechargeofdrivingwhileundertheinfluenceofanintoxicantisdismissed. (#'   CostsofthisappealareassessedtotheStateofTennessee.g  |*%)  h+&* Ї   `     h     _______________________________     `     h     WILLIAMM.BARKER,JUSTICE