WPCU5 SHJw]*Y!>H(Q₄Β6)eW1Gj)uSuO]OEq`ڍq53R/7q+3)VY_ḟ!K3pZ[caϿ2i;I N/*vFrX[=Gfu|b,mjN8fp÷1ioAoRcg4)qD]UpsWL #E,*]2뻔h -F,N=};Oh`uɫl񾑒#pDy610\C_I|+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!.81XXdd 8         0  X1XԀ d(|3$ U!.81XXdd 8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ U!.81XXdd 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKKXlO  , deUU(n$ (  1  ) U!.85DXXdd8     _ @ M INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE# M#Ԉ & f  @"May2000Session L XX f  g # XX#  STATEOFTENNESSEEv.GUY_BINETTE_XX   J f  g f  g @@  Appealf  g Ԁf  g ByPermissionf  g Ԁf  g fromthef  g f  g CourtofCriminalAppeals  J @@ f  g f  g CriminalCourtforHamiltonCounty  6 @@ No.216632RebeccaStern,Judge# XXb#  " f  g f  g f  g @*f  g Ԉ@*AV) ` dE<` A߈ 4  @  XX No.E199800236SCR11CDFiledOctober5,2000# XX#XX Ԉ W  f  g AV) ` dE<` A /  # XX#f  XX ThisisanappealfromtheCriminalCourtforHamiltonCountyg ,f  g Ԁwhichoverruledthedefendants  motiontosuppressallevidenceobtainedbytheStateafterthedefendantwasstoppedbyapolice  officeronsuspicionofdrivingwhileundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant.Thedefendantentereda  conditionalpleaofguiltyandreservedf  forappealf  g asa_dispositive_Ԁquestionoflawg Ԁtheissueofthe  lawfulnessofthestop.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourtsjudgmentf  .Tf  g he v defendantthereaftersought,f  g ԀandthisCourtgrantedf  g ,f  g Ԁpermissiontoappealonthefollowingissue: b whetherf  reasonablesuspicion,basedonf  g specificand_articulable_Ԁfactsg ,f  g Ԁexistedtoauthorizeastopof N thedefendantsvehicle.f  g ԀHavingreviewedthef  g f  g recordf  g Ԁinthiscase,wef  g f  g holdf  g Ԁthattheevidence : preponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatthepoliceofficeractedwithreasonablesuspicion &v whenhestoppedthedefendant.Accordingly,thejudgmentf  g Ԁoff  g ԀtheCourtofCriminalAppealsg f  g isf  g  b reversed,theconvictionasenteredbythetrialcourtisvacated,andthechargeofdrivingwhileunder N theinfluenceofanintoxicantisdismissed. :  f  g @ f  g Tenn.R.App.P.11f  g ԀAppealbyPermissionf  g ;Judgmentofthef  g Ԉ   @  f  g CourtofCriminalAppealsReversedf  g f  g ;CaseDismissedf  g  !  f  WilliamM.f  g Barker,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.Rileyf  g Anderson,C.J.,and #" f  FrankF.f  g _Drowota_,g III,and_Adolpho_ԀA.f  g Birchg ,Jr.f  g ,JJ.,joined.g JaniceM.f  g Holder,J.f  g ,fileda r$# dissentingopinion. ^% $ JerryS.Sloan,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Guy_Binette_. 6'"& PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporterg ;MichaelE.Mooref  g ,f  g ԀSolicitorGeneral;f  g ԀandEllenH. )^$( Pollack,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. )J%) JerryH.Summers,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheamicuscuriae,Summers&Wyatt,P.C.  +"'+ _@66' OPINION   f  g f    OntheeveningofFebruary13,1997,GuyBinettewasdrivinginChattanooga,Tennessee, t whenhewasstoppedbyf  g Officerf  g GerryDavisf  g f  g Ԁoff  g ԀtheChattanoogaPoliceDepartment.f  g Priortothe ` stop,OfficerDavisfollowedBinetteforseveralminutesandvideotapedBinettesdriving.During L  thistime,theofficermadeseveralstatementsthatwererecordedontheaudioportionofthetape 8  regardingwhatheconsideredtobedrivingerrorsmadebyBinette.HecommentedthatBinettehad $ t  alreadycrossedtheyellowlinetwice,observedthat thevehiclejustmadeahardswerve,and  ` notedthatBinette,atonepoint,was runningabout60milesperhourina45mileperhourzone.  L  Baseduponhisobservations,f  g OfficerDavisf  g f  g decidedtostopBinetteandsubsequentlyarresthim.  8  f  g   Afterhewasindictedfordrivingundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant,Binettefiledamotion   tosuppressallevidencegainedbytheStateg f  g followingthestopf  g .Hearguedthattherewasno   reasonablesuspicionbaseduponarticulablefactsforaninvestigativestop.Atthesuppression   hearing,f  g f  g Binettetestifiedanddeniedmakingthedrivingerrorsallegedbytheofficer.Although   OfficerDavisdidnottestifyatthehearing,thevideotapedrecordingwasintroducedwithout p objection.Basingitsdecisionsolelyonthevisualportionofthevideotapeevidencef  g ,thecourt \ reachedthefollowingconclusion: H  X Xf  g f  g [T]herewasweavingwithinthelines,fairlysignificantweavingaboutthetimethe  p videostartedupuntilthetime[Binette]turnedandthelightswereactivated,soIdo  \ findthattherewasarticulablesuspicionforthestopinthiscaseandsoIwilloverrule H themotiontosuppress. 4  X Xf  g f  g f  g   PursuanttoTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure37(b)(2)(iv),Binetteenteredaconditional   pleaofguiltyandreservedasadispositivequestionoflawforappealtheissueofthelawfulnessof  thestop.Thepleaagreementprovidedforasentenceofelevenmonthsandtwentyninedaysin  countyjail,suspendedafterservingfortyeighthoursinjail;afineof$360;asuspensionofBinettes  drivingprivilegesinTennessee;andarequirementthatBinetteattendaDUIschool.Thecourt l sentencedBinettepursuanttotheagreementandissuedanorderholdingthesentenceinabeyance X  pendingresolutionofBinettesappeal.f  g f  g Ԁf  g ԀTheCourtofCriminalAppealsf  g Ԁreviewedthevideotapeand D! amajorityf  g Ԁaffirmedthetrialcourtsjudgmentg ,findingthatBinettedid swerveandweavewithin 0"  hislanef  g .Binettethensought,andthisCourtgranted,permissiontoappealonthefollowingissue: #l! whetherf  g reasonablesuspicionbasedonf  g specificandarticulablefactsexistedtoauthorizeastopof $X" Binettesvehicle. $D # f  g   f  g DISCUSSION  &"%   f  g @mm f  g I.StandardofReview  '#& f  g   f  g   InStatev.Odom,928S.W.2d18(Tenn.1996),thisCourtexaminedthedifferentstandards )$( ofappellatereviewthenusedbyTennesseecourtstoevaluateatrialcourtsfindingsoffactand x*%) conclusionsoflawonsuppressionissues.TheCourtobservedthatourappellatecourtsgenerally d+&* appliedthreedifferentstandardsofreview:preponderanceoftheevidence,anymaterialevidence,  andastandardcombiningboththepreponderanceoftheevidenceandanymaterialevidence  standards.Seeid.at2223.TheCourtresolvedthesplitamongTennesseecourtsbyadoptingthe  followingstandardforreviewofsuppressionissues: t f  X Xf  g  ` Questionsofcredibilityofthewitnesses,theweightandvalueofthe L  evidence,andresolutionofconflictsintheevidencearemattersentrustedtothetrial 8  judgeasthetrieroffact.Thepartyprevailinginthetrialcourtisentitledtothe $ t strongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceadducedatthesuppressionhearingaswell  ` asallreasonableandlegitimateinferencesthatmaybedrawnfromthatevidence.So  L  longasthegreaterweightoftheevidencesupportsthetrialcourtsfindings,those  8  findingsshallbeupheld.Inotherwords,atrialcourtsfindingsoffactina $  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 $D # presumptionofcorrectness.Underthisstandard,atrialcourtsrulingwillnotbereversedunlessthe %0!$ preponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise. #  1       &"% f  Ԁ '#&   f  g f  g @ f  g II.ApplicationofStandardofReview  (#' f  f  g   WenowturnourattentiontothepreciseissuebeforetheCourt:whetherspecificand  articulablefactsexistedtoauthorizeastopofBinettesvehicle.TheFourthAmendmenttothe  UnitedStatesConstitutionprovidesthat [t]herightofthepeopletobesecure...against t unreasonablesearchesandseizures,shallnotbeviolated,andnowarrantsshallissue,butupon ` probablecause.ArticleI,section7oftheTennesseeConstitutionsimilarlyprohibitsunreasonable L  searchesandseizuresandisidenticalinintentandpurposewiththeFourthAmendment.SeeSneed 8  v.State,423S.W.2d857,860(Tenn.1968). Consequently,underboththefederalandstate $ t constitutions,awarrantlesssearchorseizureispresumedunreasonable,andevidencediscoveredas  ` aresultthereofissubjecttosuppressionunlesstheStatedemonstratesthatthesearchorseizurewas  L  conductedpursuanttooneofthenarrowlydefinedexceptionstothewarrantrequirement.Statev.  8  Yeargan,958S.W.2d626,629(Tenn.1997). $  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 p officerhasclearlyinitiatedastopandhasseizedthesubjectofthestopwithinthemeaningofthe \ FourthAmendmentoftheFederalConstitutionandArticleI,section7oftheTennessee H Constitution.SeeStatev.Pull[e]y,863S.W.2d29,30(Tenn.1993).Thus,inorderforthestopin 4 thiscasetobeconstitutionallyvalid,atthetimethatOfficerDavisturnedonhisvehiclesbluelights,  p hemusthavehadreasonablesuspicion,supportedbyspecificandarticulablefacts,thatBinettehad  \ f  committed,f  g orwasabouttocommitg ,f  g Ԁacriminaloffense. H f  f  g   Reasonablesuspicionisaparticularizedandobjectivebasisforsuspectingthesubjectofa   stopofcriminalactivity,seeOrnelasv.UnitedStates,517U.S.690,696(1996),anditisdetermined   byconsideringthetotalityofthecircumstancessurroundingthestop,seeAlabamav.White,496  U.S.325,330(1990).Inthiscase,theStatearguesthatthefollowingspecificandarticulablefacts  giverisetoreasonablesuspicionthatBinettewasdrivingavehiclewhileundertheinfluenceofan  intoxicant: l f  X Xf  g (1)thedefendantwastravelingonaroadinHamiltonCounty,Tennesseeatabout D! midnightonFebruary13,1997;(2)itwasnotraining,andtheweatherwasnot 0"  inclement;(3)therewasnoconstructionandnotrafficofanyconsequence;(4)the #l! videotapeshowsthat]inatwominuteperiodoftime,thedefendantscarappearsto $X" touchthecenterlineatleastfourtimes...[(5)][thevideotapealsoshowsthat]the $D # defendantscarmadeasuddenswervewithinhisownlane. %0!$ f  XD XDf  g   AccordingtotheState,thefirstthreefacts,whichareundisputed,eliminateotheralternative '#& explanationsfortheerraticdrivingitattributestoBinette.TheStatearguesthat [w]henacar (#' weavesbackandforthseveraltimesinitsownlaneg latef  g atnightinclearweatherwithlittletraffic )$( andnoconstruction,atrainedpoliceofficermayinferfromthosefactsthatthedrivermaybedriving |*%) whileintoxicated.However,ineachofthecasescitedbytheStateinwhichothercourtshave h+&* foundprobablecausetostopadriverwhowasweavingwithinasinglelaneoftraffic,thepolice  officerobservedthedefendantweaveinapronouncedmannertotheoutsideandinsideboundaries  ofthelane. #  2        f  f  g   Wehaveviewedthevideotape,andweg havelistenedtotheofficersrecordednarrationof ` hisobservations.Equallyascapableasthetrialcourtofreviewingthisevidence,wefindthatthe L  officersstatements,madeatthetimeoftheinvestigation,areclearlycontradictedbythevisual 8  portionofthetape,andthus,wegivethemlittleweightinourdenovoreviewoftheevidence.We $ t f  g simplydonotfindanyevidenceofpronouncedweavingorhardswervingbyBinetteg f  g ,andf  g Ԁwe  ` disagreewiththeStatescontentionf  g Ԁthatthevideotapeshowsf  g ԀthatBinettetouchedthecenterlineat  L  leastfourtimes.Wenotethatf  g amajorityoff  g theCourtofCriminalAppeals,afterviewingthe  8  videotape,f  g f  g foundf  ԀonlytwoinstancesinwhichBinettesvehicletouchedthecenterline.g f  g Themajority $  anddissentingopinionsfromthatcourtagreedthatthe weavingwasentirelywithinhislaneof   travelandwasnotexaggerated.WeagreewiththeCourtofCriminalAppealsthatanymovement   Binettesvehiclemadef  g Ԁwithinhisownlanef  g f  g oftravelwasclearlynotexaggeratedf  g .Thenumberof   timesthatavehicletouchesthecenterlineordriftswithininalanef  Ԁisf  g Ԁnotdispositiveoftheissue   beforethisCourt.Rather,aswehavepreviouslynoted,acourtmustconsiderthetotalityofthe p circumstancesindeterminingwhetherreasonablesuspicionwaspresentatthetimeastopwas \ initiated. H f  f  g   Priortotheinitiationofthestop,thevideotapeshowsBinetteproceedingcorrectlythrough  p anumberofintersectionsandstoplightsandmaintainingappropriatedistancesbehindthevehicles  \ thathewasfollowing.g f  g Moreover,Binettewastravelingalongawindingroad!amoredifficultcourse H onwhichtotravelinastraightline.ContrarytowhatOfficerDavisstatedthatheobserved,wefind 4 thatBinettedidnotviolateanyf  g Ԁrulesoftheroadduringtheperiodinwhichthevideocamera   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 l aperfectvectordownthehighway...[was]sufficientreason[]tosuspectapersonofdrivingwhile X  impaired,asubstantialportionofthepublicwouldbesubjecteachdaytoaninvasionoftheir D! privacy.UnitedStatesv.Lyons,7F.3d973,976(10thCir.1993).f  g f  g Likewise,if  g nhisdissenting  opinioninthecourtbelow,JudgeJerryL.Smithemphasizedthedangeroffindingreasonable  suspicionunderthesefacts:  f  g X Xf  g Inessence...[findingreasonablesuspicion]createsa stopatwillstandardfor ` policesinceitistheraremotoristindeedwhocantravelforseveralmileswithout L  occasionallyvaryingspeedunnecessarily,movinglaterallyfromtimetotimeinthe 8  motorist[]sownlane,nearingthecenterlineorshoulder[,]orexhibitingsomesmall $ t imperfectioninhisorherdriving.  `  X[ X[Statev.Binette,No.03C019802CR0075,at7n.2(Tenn.Crim.App.June28,1999)(filedat  8  Knoxville)(Smith,J.,dissenting).f  g f  g Ԁ $    TheCourtofCriminalAppealshasrecentlyrefusedtofindthatanofficerhadreasonable   suspiciontostopadriverwhosedrivingitfoundnottobeerraticorinanywayimproper.   Explainingitsrationale,thecourtstated, WearenotwillingtoignoretheguaranteesoftheFourth   Amendmentandindirectlyholdthat[t]hewordautomobileis...atalismaninwhosepresence p theFourthAmendmentfadesawayanddisappears.Statev.Smith,21S.W.3d251(Tenn.Crim. \ App.1999)(citingCoolidgev.NewHampshire,403U.S.443,46162(1971)).Weagree. H   Inconjunctionwithourfindingsbasedonthevideotape,Binettetestifiedthathedidnot  p makethedrivingerrorsallegedbytheofficer.Althoughwegivestrongdeferencetotheconclusions  \ ofthetrialcourtwhenitweighsandconsidersawitnessslive,incourttestimony,thereisno H explicitindicationintherecordconcerningwhetherthetrialjudgefoundBinettetobecredible. 4 Indeed,absolutelynoreferencewasmadetoBinettestestimony;thetrialjudgereliedentirelyon   herownperceptionsofwhatwasdepictedonthevideotape.Thus,evenwerewetoassumethat   Binettewasnotcredible,butseeCleekv.WalMartStores,Inc.,19S.W.3d770,775(Tenn.2000)  (assumingthecredibilityofawitnessinpartbasedontheabsenceoftrialjudgesfindingsonthe  record),weneverthelessfindthatthepreponderanceoftheevidenceweighsagainstthetrialcourts  findings,andwethusreversethetrialcourtsdeterminationthattheofficerhadreasonablesuspicion l tostopBinette. X     `     h CONCLUSION  0"    Insummary,basedonourreviewoftheentirerecordofthesuppressionhearing,weholdf  g Ԁthat $X" theevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatOfficerDavishadreasonable $D # suspiciontostopBinettefordrivingwhileundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant.WhileBinettedid %0!$ movelaterallyattimeswithinhislanewhileoperatinghisvehicle,g f  g wefindf  g Ԁthg f  g atf  g Ԁhismovementwas &"% notpronounced,f  g f  g andthereforedidnotgivef  g Ԁrisetoreasonablesuspicionthathewasunderthe '#& influenceofanintoxicant.f  g ԀAccordingly,thejudgmentsofthetrialcourtandtheCourtofCriminal (#' AppealsdenyingBinettesmotiontosuppressarereversed,theconvictionasenteredbythetrial )$( courtisvacated,andthechargeofdrivingwhileundertheinfluenceofanintoxicantisdismissed. |*%)  h+&*   CostsofthisappealareassessedtotheStateofTennessee.g      `     h     _______________________________ $ t    `     h     WILLIAMM.BARKER,JUSTICE  `       f  g    `     h      p