ÿWPCN T*{YÿhÅ8õhÇ8CV::¬ç–>”RAPÿÔz#åÂƫõhÊ?ÒͳÏL{8SÇEY™Î½”3õSZ²‰½ÓÏ/Ò§ ¾¼.à^Ý^{fÖ.]ˆÇ':K}[Í«šMYÀÜ$g!Çî 6PµåšGîåÞh„•(B']]þ¨%]‚ö ßá—ÿªY¨yƒY8÷@½CþbŸ¤–‡% ðákß.:$³8 CE§­T”wç jëÌ\9ÒÖòàÐõæ^¾ðƒäˆ!­]ûÈ¥ÒPm’oy÷T÷™9ñ¿c7 ÈæõbòeY¦r8Ê©Ri›h·óÙW¸°77´ Ðùg¸•qöyº «8Ój·=†ªÈjè[@¹L>&íF2`­¦š¾ƒÝlV—Ó\šQeÎn¸hP½;*Ø—ý’paCü¤m\ÙÛÓSˆAÛÇY¡µ@Ë©UNa?ruB5þ%%ˆ •QQë“xÜ„·‘ÏTGÚ^¸ ”0ìûêìÓœé„[k‹Ü;âkÅñ" êF˜þ2¶ §6pÍlÀPp›0 Ç«h|SôÂv½0®´'Ò÷¥û’IÌ_Â0|'zÍÕëq´´[°K7„Mœóžœh0"tUNX %¦ 0§¬#ÉS Œ Ú¨ ^ ‚ zŽ ÒVÚÜ mÞwõÆùƿƅÆK4N%UA@' gE   0U  0ãu X 0Å` 0¿% 0¹ä  0³¥ 0­X     0§ 0¡Ä 0Åe 0Ñ* ^û 0³Y 0D  0­P 0§ýb¤ 0¡¬ 0›M 0•è 0} 0 ! 0ÎÌ! 0°š" 0ªJ# 0¤ô# 0ž˜$ 0˜6% 0’Î% 0Š`& 0²ê& 0¾œ' 0¾Z( 0>) 0øV) 0âN* 0â0+ 0â, 0âô, 0âÖ- 0º¸. 0Òr/ 02D0 0üv0 0:r1 0Y¬1 0_2 0 d2 0‚n3 0ð4 B*ö6 D/ 7 0 O7 0[8 D/a: 0Î: B^; 06{; 0ñ; D5t< D-©< 0KÖ< 0!= AS)>Æ|> 0ÃB? 0D@ A«I@ 0:ô@ 0^.A 0<ŒA 1eÈAU6-BU>cBU*¡B"ËBíDØ|F 1uTH 72ÉH 0cûH^I 0NtIÂI:ÂKüM(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(ðš$¡¡Ô€»Ì »»»ÔÑ€..ÑÑ8€í»»d »»d 8ÑÑ ýý ÑÓ  Ó˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION3.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\opinion3.wptÒpO/Ï  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5o=/´¥¡(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman  –Ý ƒR($ÝÔ€»^»»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôãò»»^Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔOral€argument€was€heard€in€this€case€on€May€28,€2003,€in€Cookeville,€Putnam€County,€Tennessee,€as€partÐ ° Ðof€this€Court's€Ô_ÔS.C.A.L.E.S.Ô_Ô€(Supreme€Court€Advancing€Legal€Education€for€Students)€project.3|x1*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*G+G ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó2*8+8 ÿÿ(_24Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*5+5 ÿÿ(_23Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*2+2 ÿÿ(_22Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó4*/+/ ÿÿ(_21Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,+, ÿÿ(_20Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó789*)+) ÿÿ(_19Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó*&+& ÿÿ(_18Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó*AA ÿÿ(_17Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó*GG ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó?\Appellees Attorney Name & Appellee's Name.*88 ÿÿ(_15Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó*55 ÿÿ(_14Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*22 ÿÿ(_13Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó- ù-*// ÿÿ(_12Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,, ÿÿ(_11Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)) ÿÿ(_10Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó(&& ÿÿ&_9Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó(AA ÿÿ&_8Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(GG ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó(88 ÿÿ&_6Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó(55 ÿÿ&_5Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó(22 ÿÿ&_4Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó(// ÿÿ&_3Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó(,, ÿÿ&_2Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó()) ÿÿ&_1Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó&&& ÿÿ$_Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó0AAÿÿ.NormalÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<AAÿÿ:Definition TÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(hhÿÿ&H1Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H2Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H3Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H4Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(]]ÿÿ&H5Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔ(]]ÿÿ&H6Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó2DDÿÿ0AddressÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓòòóóÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡f<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡gô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡f<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡gô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<Ÿ§ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ  ÓÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡f<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡gô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÓ  Ó<Ûïÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€Q(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡h%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡gô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó&ÿÿ  d dP)1dxd(›I2($¤¤Ý ƒðš!ÝÔ€»^»»»ÔÑ€.ÑÑ8€^»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôãò»»^Ô€€<Ûïÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€T(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡h%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡gô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓP)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡f<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡gô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ d0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó(›3Z$££Ý ƒðš!ÝÔ€»^»»»ÔÑ€.ÑÑ8€^»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡f<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡gô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(›3Z$¢¢Ý ƒðš!ÝÔ€»^»»»ÔÑ€.ÑÑ8€^»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô'(*,-/01 ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial Ý ƒR($ÝÔ€»^»»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôãò»»^Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔWith€due€respect€to€the€author€of€the€dissenting€opinion,€we€did€not€find€the€videotape€to€be€"dark,€indistinct,Ð ° Ðand€mainly€Ô_Ôconsist[ingÔ_Ô]€of€diffused€light."€€Conversely,€we€were€able€to€see€clearly€what€was€depicted€with€respect€toÐ tÄ Ðthe€defendant's€driving,€other€traffic,€and€the€condition€of€the€roadway. …Ý ƒR($ÝÔ€»^»»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôãò»»^Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔA€"rocker€panel"€is€defined€as€"the€portion€of€the€body€paneling€of€a€vehicle€that€is€situated€below€theÐ ° Ðdoorsills€of€the€passenger€compartment."€€òòWebster's€Third€New€International€Dictionaryóó€1965€(1993). ÎÝ ƒR($ÝÔ€»^»»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôãò»»^Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€is€applicable€to€the€states€via€the€FourteenthÐ ° ÐAmendment.€€òòÔ_ÔMappÔ_Ô€v.€Ohioóó,€367€U.S.€643,€81€Ô_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.€1684,€6€Ô_ÔL.EdÔ_Ô.2d€1081€(1961).€€3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)li)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à Ñ ° Ñ(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ öÝ ƒR($ÝÔ€»^»»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôãò»»^Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔBoth€sides€have€argued€that€the€otherò ò€ó óparty€has€waived€the€attenuation€issue€by€failing€to€raise€it€at€the€trialÐ ° Ðlevel.€€However,€because€the€issue€of€attenuation€did€not€arise€until€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€determined€the€trafficÐ vÆ Ðstop€to€be€unlawful,€we€will€address€the€issue€on€the€merits. 0Ý ƒR($ÝÔ€»^»»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôãò»»^Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThough€the€application€of€the€attenuation€doctrine€to€a€consent€€following€an€illegal€seizure€is€an€issue€of€firstÐ ° Ðimpression€for€this€Court,€we€have€previously€adopted€the€òòBrownóó€attenuation€factors€to€evaluate€whether€a€confessionÐ tÄ Ðwas€admissible€following€a€Fourth€Amendment€violation.€òòÔ_ÔHuddlestonÔ_Ôóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€674. Ý ƒðš!ÝÔ€»^»»»ÔÑ€.ÑÑ8€^»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼^»»»^ÔÔ‡¼^»»¼^ÔÑ8€ XXdì»»d8ÑÓ=€^»Ð»dÐd=ÓÑ€oOYÑà@™ ™ ìàÔ#†¼^»»¼^ñ#ÔÔ‡îPà^ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼^»îîPàË#ÔÔ‡¼^»»¼^ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓMay€28,€2003€Session€Heard€at€Ô_ÔCookevilleÔ_ÔÐ üL ÐÔ#†¼^»»¼^b#ÔÔ‡X X»¼^ÔÌÔ#†¼^»XX ##Ôò òÔ‡¼^»»¼^ÔÔ% ‡ ÔÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€Ô#†¼^»»¼^i#ÔÔ‡¼^»»¼^ÔÔ%†ˆÔv.€GONZALO€à0 @ àMORAN€GARCIAÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†(Ôó óÔ#†¼^»»¼^×#ÔÔ‡X X»¼^ÔÐ úJ ÐÓ•ÓÔ#†¼^»XX l#ÔÔ‡X X»¼^ÔÌò òAppeal€by€permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,Ð ú J ЀÔ#†¼^»XX Ó#ÔÔ‡X X»¼^ÔÔ% ‡ ÔCriminal€Court€Ô%††Ôfor€Davidson€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99„C„01760€€Steve€Dozier,€JudgeÔ% ‡" ÔÔ%†"ÔÐ Ò " ÐÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` dE<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€Ô% ‡# ÔM2000„01760„SC„R11„CDÔ%†#ÃÔÔ#†¼^»XX g#ÔÔ‡X X»¼^Ô€„€Filed€October€1,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼^»XX #ÔÔ‡X X»¼^ÔÓÓThe€defendant,€Gonzalo€M.€Garcia,€was€convicted€in€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€County€ofÐ xÈ  Ðpossession€of€one€thousand€grams€or€more€of€methamphetamine€with€intent€to€deliver.€€We€grantedÐ d´ Ðthis€appeal€to€determine€whether€the€evidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€the€stop€should€have€beenÐ P  Ðsuppressed.€€After€examining€the€facts€and€law€relevant€to€the€issues,€we€hold€that€the€defendant'sÐ <Œ Ðtraffic€stop€was€not€based€upon€reasonable€suspicion,€in€violation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€theÐ (x ÐFederal€Constitution€and€Article€I,€section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€We€also€hold€that€theÐ d Ðevidence€in€this€case€must€be€suppressed€because€the€defendant's€consent€to€search€his€vehicle€wasÐ P Ðnot€sufficiently€attenuated€from€his€unlawful€detention.׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ì< ÐÔ#†¼^»XX #ÔÓ.ÓÔ‡X X»¼^ÔÓàÓÌò òÔ% ‡$ ÔÔ%†$‚ ÔÔ#†¼^»XX O #ÔÔ‡X X»¼^ÔÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Appeal€by€Permission;€Ð Ä ÐJudgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€Affirmed€in€Part€and€Reversed€in€Part.Ô#†¼^»XX à #ÔÔ‡X X»¼^Ôó óÐ ° ÐÓâ ÓÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼^»àX   #ÔÔ‡X X.¼^ÔWilliam€M.€Barker,€Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòFrank€F.€DrowotaÔ#†¼^»àX #ÔÔ‡X X.¼^Ô,€III,€C.J.,Ð ˆØ ÐE.€Riley€AndersonÔ#†¼^»àX ¶#ÔÔ‡X X.¼^Ô,€óóandòò€Ô_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birchóó,€òòJróó.,€JJ.€joined.€€òòJanice€M.€Holderóó,€J.€filed€aÐ tÄ Ðdissenting€opinion.Ð `° ÐÌRichard€M.€McGee€and€James€O.€Martin,€III,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€GonzaloÐ 8!ˆ  ÐMoran€Garcia.Ô#†¼^»XX *#ÔÔ‡X X»¼^ÔÐ $"t! ÐÌWesley€Ô_ÔMacNeilÔ_Ô€Oliver,€New€Haven,€Connecticut,€for€the€amicus€curiae,€Tennessee€Association€ofÐ ü#L# ÐCriminal€Defense€Lawyers.Ð è$8 $ ÐÌÔ% ‡) ÔÔ%†)™ÔPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Daryl€J.Ð À&"& ÐBrand,€Associate€Solicitor€General;€Victor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€JohnÐ ¬'ü"' ÐZimmerman,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ô#†¼^»XX ¢#ÔÔ‡X X»¼^ÔÐ ˜(è#( ÐÔ#†¼^»XX #ÔÔ‡X X»¼^ÔÌÓë ÓÔ#†¼^»XX i#ÔÓÓò òÔ‡X X»¼^ÔOPINIONÔ#†¼^»XX Ñ#Ôó óÐ p*À%*ý ÐÔ_ÔÔ‡X X»¼^Ôò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óÔ#†¼^»XX F#ÔÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÓÓà  àÔ‡X X»¼^ÔAt€approximately€10:50€p.m.€on€May€9,€1999,€the€defendant,€Gonzalo€M.€Garcia,€wasÐ ˆØ Ðstopped€in€his€vehicle€by€Officer€Deborah€Kohl€of€the€Metropolitan€Nashville€("Metro")€PoliceÐ tÄ ÐDepartment€while€driving€on€Interstate€Highway€24€in€Nashville,€Davidson€County,€Tennessee.€Ð `° ÐDuring€the€traffic€stop,€Metro€police€officers€seized€40.1€pounds,€or€approximately€18,200€grams,Ð L œ Ðof€methamphetamine.€€On€September€24,€1999,€a€Davidson€County€Grand€Jury€issued€an€indictmentÐ 8 ˆ Ðcharging€the€defendant€with€one€count€of€possession€of€one€thousand€grams€or€more€ofÐ $ t Ðmethamphetamine€with€intent€to€deliver.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€anyÐ  ` Ðevidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€the€traffic€stop.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion,€and€the€Court€ofÐ ü L  ÐCriminal€Appeals€upheld€that€ruling.€€We€granted€review€in€this€case€to€determine€whether€the€lowerÐ è 8  Ðcourts€erred€by€refusing€to€suppress€the€evidence.€€Accordingly,€our€factual€background€will€beÐ Ô$  Ðlimited€to€the€relevant€portions€of€the€suppression€hearing€and€the€trial.Ð À  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€Officer€Kohl€testified€that€she€had€been€with€the€Nashville€PoliceÐ ˜è  ÐDepartment€for€eleven€years€and€was€currently€assigned€to€the€Twentieth€Judicial€District€Drug€TaskÐ „Ô  ÐForce€and€had€been€so€assigned€for€€approximately€eight€months€before€the€traffic€stop€in€this€case.€Ð pÀ ÐShe€also€testified€that€she€had€received€specialized€training€in€the€field€of€highway€drug€interdictionÐ \¬ Ðat€conferences€organized€by€the€United€States€Custom€Service€and€the€Drug€EnforcementÐ H˜ ÐAdministration.€€Additionally,€Officer€Kohl€stated€that€she€had€trained€for€a€week€in€El€Paso,€TexasÐ 4„ Ðwith€the€United€States€Custom€Service€and€that€she€had€attended€other€conferences€on€highway€drugÐ  p Ðinterdiction€in€Nashville€and€Memphis.Ð  \ Ѐ€Ð øH Ðà  àOfficer€Kohl€testified€that€on€the€evening€of€the€traffic€stop€in€this€case,€she€had€justÐ ä4 Ðcompleted€an€unrelated€traffic€stop€and€began€traveling€east€on€Interstate€Highways€40€and€24€in€aÐ Ð  Ðmarked€police€cruiser.€€While€driving€in€the€center€eastbound€lane,€Kohl€testified€that€as€she€beganÐ ¼  Ðto€overtake€the€defendant's€car,€which€was€in€the€far€right€lane,€she€noticed€that€the€defendant's€carÐ ¨ø Ð"was€swerving€in€its€lane€of€traffic."€€She€then€pulled€in€behind€the€defendant's€vehicle€in€order€toÐ ”ä Ðobserve€its€actions.€€Officer€Kohl€stated€that€vehicle's€erratic€behavior€continued:Ð €Ð ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒThe€vehicle€would€drive€in€its€lane€„„€it€stayed€in€its€lane€of€traffic;Ð l¼ Ðbut,€as€the€vehicle€was€going€in€its€lane€of€traffic,€it€would€swerveÐ X ¨ Ðover€to€the€right„hand€marker,€then€it€would€swerve€over€to€the€left„Ð D!” Ðlane€marker.Ð 0"€  ÐÌAnd€I€became€concerned€for€his€safety,€as€well€as€the€safety€of€otherÐ $X" Ðmotorists,€and€decided€to€stop€the€vehicle,€at€that€point€in€time.€Ð ô$D # ÐÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒAmong€other€possibilities,€Officer€Kohl€stated€that€she€suspected€that€the€driver€of€the€vehicle€mayÐ à%0!$ Ðhave€been€intoxicated.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àUpon€stopping€the€defendant's€vehicle,€a€white€Pontiac€Bonneville,€Officer€Kohl€exited€herÐ ¤(ô#' Ðvehicle€and€approached€the€defendant's€vehicle€on€the€passenger€side.€€Upon€reaching€the€passengerÐ )à$( Ðdoor,€she€motioned€for€the€defendant€to€roll€down€the€window,€which€he€did.€€Because€the€defendantÐ |*Ì%) Ðappeared€puzzled€when€she€identified€herself€as€a€Nashville€Metro€Police€Officer,€Officer€KohlÐ h+¸&* Ðstated€that€she€asked€the€defendant€if€he€spoke€Spanish,€to€which€he€replied,€"Yes."€€Kohl€thenÐ ° Ðrequested€the€defendant€to€exit€the€car€and€follow€her€to€the€rear€of€the€vehicle.€€Officer€Kohl€toldÐ œì Ðthe€defendant€in€Spanish:€"I'm€a€police€officer€in€Nashville,€Tennessee.€€The€reason€I€stopped€youÐ ˆØ Ðwas€for€a€moving€violation.€€The€moving€violation€was€weaving."€€At€that€point,€Kohl€testified€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€defendant€replied,€in€English,€"I€was€weaving."€€Because€the€defendant€was€responsive€toÐ `° ÐEnglish,€the€remainder€of€the€conversation€between€Kohl€and€the€defendant€was€in€English.Ð L œ ÐÌÒ°°Òà  àAfter€explaining€to€the€defendant€the€reason€he€had€been€pulled€over,€Officer€Kohl€asked€himÐ $ t Ðif€he€had€been€drinking€alcohol.€€The€defendant€answered€no,€and€Kohl€testified€that€the€defendant'sÐ  ` Ðactions€were€not€consistent€with€ò òÔb  Ôó óhisò òÔbÉ(Ôó ó€being€intoxicated.€€In€fact,€Kohl€testified€that€two€minutes€intoÐ ü L  Ðthe€traffic€stop,€she€was€satisfied€that€the€defendant€was€not€intoxicated.€€Moreover,€she€admitted€thatÐ è 8  Ðshe€did€not€witness€the€defendant€speed,€drive€too€slowly,€cross€any€lanes€of€traffic,€illegally€passÐ Ô$  Ðanother€vehicle,€follow€too€closely,€commit€a€violation€regarding€use€of€the€turning€signal,€or€driveÐ À  Ðon€the€shoulder.€€After€the€defendant€denied€drinking€alcohol,€Kohl€asked€him€if€he€was€tired.€€TheÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendant€explained€to€Kohl€that€he€was€tired€because€he€had€left€Los€Angeles,€California,€the€dayÐ ˜è  Ðbefore€and€only€briefly€stopped€at€rest€areas€to€sleep.€€Kohl€asked€the€defendant€about€his€destination,Ð „Ô  Ðand€he€explained€that€he€was€traveling€to€Georgia.€€Kohl€testified€that€the€defendant€gaveÐ pÀ Ðinconsistent€answers€concerning€who€owned€the€vehicle€and€where€he€was€going.€€However,€the€carÐ \¬ Ðwas€not€stolen€and€the€registration€matched€the€vehicle.€€At€the€suppression€hearing,€Kohl€could€notÐ H˜ Ðrecall€whether€the€name€on€the€vehicle€registration€was€the€same€name€that€the€defendant€claimedÐ 4„ Ðwas€the€owner.€€After€obtaining€the€vehicle€registration€and€the€defendant's€driver's€license,€KohlÐ  p Ðasked€the€defendant€about€his€driving€record€and€arrest€record.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€hisÐ  \ Ðdriving€record€was€"good,"€although€he€admitted€that€he€had€one€arrest€for€driving€under€theÐ øH Ðinfluence.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àAfter€examining€the€defendant's€license€and€vehicle€registration,€Kohl€informed€him€that€sheÐ ¼  Ðwas€going€to€issue€him€a€warning€citation.€€Kohl€advised€the€defendant€that€the€warning€citationÐ ¨ø Ðwould€not€carry€a€monetary€fine,€nor€require€him€to€come€to€court,€nor€affect€his€driving€record.€Ð ”ä ÐKohl€also€gave€the€defendant€directions€to€a€location€where€he€could€park€his€vehicle€and€rest.€€SheÐ €Ð Ðinstructed€the€defendant€to€wait€in€his€vehicle€until€she€finished€writing€the€citation.€While€retainingÐ l¼ Ðthe€defendant's€license€and€registration,€Kohl€proceeded€to€her€patrol€car,€where€she€radioed€for€aÐ X ¨ Ðfellow€officer€to€transport€a€drug„detection€dog€to€the€scene.€€Afterwards,€Kohl€prepared€a€warningÐ D!” Ðcitation€for€a€violation€of€"lane€restrictions,"€and€also€wrote€out€a€"Consent€to€Search"€form€inÐ 0"€  ÐSpanish€before€returning€to€the€defendant's€vehicle.€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àWhen€Officer€Kohl€approached€the€defendant,€she€beckoned€him€to€get€back€out€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðvehicle.€€When€he€complied,€Kohl€returned€to€the€defendant€his€driver's€license,€the€vehicleÐ à%0!$ Ðregistration,€and€the€warning€citation.€€After€explaining€to€the€defendant€that€when€he€was€tired,€heÐ Ì&"% Ðneeded€to€take€a€coffee€or€sleep€break,€Officer€Kohl€thanked€the€defendant€and€told€him,€"The€stop'sÐ ¸'#& Ðcomplete."€€When€the€defendant€began€to€walk€towards€his€car,€Officer€Kohl€turned€as€though€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðreturn€to€her€vehicle.€€However,€she€promptly€turned€around€and€asked€the€defendant€if€she€couldÐ )à$( Ðâ âask€him€a€few€questions.€€When€the€defendant€returned€to€Kohl's€location€at€her€direction,€KohlÐ |*Ì%) Ðasked€him€if€he€had€any€weapons€or€long„bladed€knives€in€his€vehicle.€€The€defendant€replied,€"No."€Ð ° ÐKohl€then€asked€the€defendant€if€he€had€any€illegal€drugs€in€the€vehicle.€€Officer€Kohl€testified:Ð œì Ðâ âÒ` °ÒÒ` °Ò€At€this€point€in€time,€his€demeanor€changed.€€He€gave€me€a€„„€aÐ ˆØ Ðnervous,€laughing,€"No."€€And€he€„„€he€became€fidgety.€€You€couldÐ tÄ Ðsee€him€scratching€on€his€back.€€He€was€nervous€and€you€couldÐ `° Ðliterally€see€his€Adam['s]€apple,€a€nervous€sign,€bobbing€up€and€down,Ð L œ Ðwhen€I€was€talking€to€him,€which,€to€me,€is€an€indicator€of€some€typeÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€deception.€Ð $ t ÐÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àÌÒ°°Òà  àOfficer€Kohl€then€asked€the€defendant€for€permission€to€search€his€vehicle.€€Kohl€claimedÐ ü L  Ðthat€the€defendant€promptly€invited€Kohl€to€inspect€the€trunk.€€Kohl€declined€and€asked€the€defendantÐ è 8  Ðif€he€could€read€in€Spanish.€€When€the€defendant€responded€that€he€could€read€in€Spanish,€KohlÐ Ô$  Ðasked€him€to€read€the€"Consent€to€Search"€form€that€she€had€prepared.€€She€testified€that€"[a]s€heÐ À  Ðread,€you€could€follow€his€finger€going€along€each€sentence,€which,€to€„„€to€me,€demonstrated€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðhe€was€actually€reading€the€statement."€€The€consent€form€indicated€that€the€defendant€had€the€rightÐ ˜è  Ðto€refuse€consent,€the€right€to€limit€consent€to€certain€portions€of€the€vehicle,€as€well€as€the€right€toÐ „Ô  Ðrevoke€his€consent€at€any€time.€€The€defendant€printed€his€name€on€the€consent€form€and€then€signedÐ pÀ Ðit.€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àSubsequently,€Officer€Dean€Hunter,€who€had€arrived€shortly€beforehand,€permitted€his€drug„Ð 4„ Ðdetection€dog,€Lou,€to€smell€around€the€vehicle.€€The€dog€indicated€that€it€detected€the€presence€ofÐ  p Ðillegal€drugs€on€both€the€driver€and€passenger€side€of€the€vehicle.€€Because€the€drug„detection€dogÐ  \ Ðindicated€a€positive€response,€Officers€Kohl€and€Hunter€began€to€search€the€vehicle€while€theÐ øH Ðdefendant€remained€a€short€distance€away€with€another€police€officer€who€had€also€arrived€on€theÐ ä4 Ðscene.€€Kohl€recalled€that€while€examining€the€interior€of€the€vehicle,€Officer€Hunter€noticed€that€theÐ Ð  Ðvehicle's€rocker€panels׃j×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€had€a€fresh€coat€of€paint€that€looked€different€than€the€paint€on€the€rest€ofÐ ¼  Ðthe€vehicle.€€Officer€Hunter€removed€the€molding€that€covered€the€rocker€panel€and€inserted€a€probeÐ ¨ø Ðinto€the€pre„existing€screw€holes.€€Around€one„half€inch€into€the€holes,€he€met€some€moderateÐ ”ä Ðresistence.€€Hunter€then€inserted€a€drill€into€the€holes,€and€the€drill€caused€€some€"white„terry„clothÐ €Ð Ðmaterial"€to€exit€the€holes.€€Realizing€that€the€cloth€material€should€not€be€in€the€rocker€panel,€KohlÐ l¼ Ðretrieved€a€"buster"€or€a€density€meter€and€measured€the€density€of€the€rocker€panels.€€Kohl€recalled:€Ð X ¨ Ð"I€got€a€real€high€[density]€rating,€a€reading€of€a€sixty„eight€which€told€me€that€there€was€somethingÐ D!” Ðinside€of€[the€rocker€panel].€€A€normal€reading€should€be,€I€would€say€probably,€a€twenty,€twenty„Ð 0"€  Ðfive,€something€like€that."€€Ð #l! ÐÒ°°Òà  àÌà  àFollowing€the€high€density€reading,€the€officers€drilled€holes€into€the€rocker€panels,€resultingÐ ô$D # Ðin€"a€pinkish„brown„type€material"€exiting€the€drill€bit.€€Kohl€testified€that€the€officers€tested€theÐ à%0!$ Ðmaterial€for€the€presence€of€cocaine€but€received€negative€results.€€Despite€the€negative€result€fromÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€cocaine€test,€Kohl€claimed€that€"we€knew€something€was€there€that€didn't€belong€there."€Ð ¸'#& ÐThereafter,€officers€used€a€hammer€to€break€the€rocker€panels€open,€where€they€found€"duct„tapedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbundles"€inside€the€rocker€panels.€€Officer€Kohl€then€placed€the€defendant€under€arrest.€€LaboratoryÐ ° Ðtesting€revealed€that€the€bundles€contained€40.1€pounds,€or€approximately€eighteen€thousand€grams,Ð œì Ðof€methamphetamine.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€Officer€Kohl's€direct€examination,€the€State€introduced€a€video€tape€ofÐ `° ÐKohl's€traffic€stop€of€the€defendant.€€The€audio€portion€of€the€video€tape€is€indiscernible.€€Kohl€statedÐ L œ Ðthat€after€the€traffic€stop,€she€discovered€the€battery€which€powered€the€audio€equipment€was€dead.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐAdditionally,€the€State€introduced€into€evidence,€without€objection,€a€certified€copy€of€MetropolitanÐ $ t ÐNashville€Code€section€12.68.170,€entitled€"Careless€driving."€€Section€12.68.170€provides:Ð  ` ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒA.€€Every€person€operating€a€vehicle€upon€the€streets€within€theÐ ü L  Ðmetropolitan€government,€or€any€private€road€or€driveway€or€parkingÐ è 8  Ðarea,€shall€drive€the€same€in€a€careful€and€prudent€manner,€havingÐ Ô$  Ðregard€for€the€width,€grade,€curves,€corners,€traffic€and€use€of€theseÐ À  Ðstreets€and€private€areas,€and€all€other€attendant€circumstances,€so€asÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€to€endanger€the€life,€limb€or€property€of€any€person.€€Failure€toÐ ˜è  Ðdrive€in€such€manner€shall€constitute€careless€driving€and€a€violationÐ „Ô  Ðof€this€chapter.Ð pÀ ÐÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àAt€the€close€of€the€State's€evidence,€the€defendant€testified€through€an€interpreter.€€TheÐ \¬ Ðdefendant's€testimony€at€the€suppression€hearing€was€limited€to€establish€his€standing€to€contest€theÐ H˜ Ðsearch€of€the€vehicle€which€he€was€driving€on€May€9,€1999.€€Garcia€claimed€that€the€owner€of€theÐ 4„ Ðvehicle,€Efrain€Orosco,€had€given€him€permission€to€drive€it€while€Orosco€was€away€on€vacation€toÐ  p ÐMexico.€€Moreover,€the€defendant€claimed€that€Orosco€knew€that€the€defendant€was€planning€aÐ  \ Ðvacation€to€Georgia€and€had€given€him€permission€to€drive€the€vehicle€on€his€trip.€€Lastly,€theÐ øH Ðdefendant€acknowledged€that€no€one€else€had€driven€the€vehicle€within€three€days€immediately€priorÐ ä4 Ðto€the€traffic€stop.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress,€the€trial€court€denied€the€defendant'sÐ ¨ø Ðmotion,€concluding€that€the€initial€stop€was€based€upon€reasonable€suspicion.€€The€trial€court€furtherÐ ”ä Ðheld€that€the€initial€search€of€the€defendant's€vehicle€was€based€upon€consent,€and€the€more€invasiveÐ €Ð Ðsearch€of€the€vehicle's€rocker€panels€was€based€upon€consent€and€also€probable€cause.Ð l¼ ÐÌÒ°°ÒÓ  Óà  àAt€trial,€the€State€again€presented€the€testimony€of€Officer€Kohl.€€Though€Officer€Kohl'sÐ D!” Ðtestimony€was€virtually€identical€to€her€testimony€at€the€suppression€hearing,€she€did€relay€someÐ 0"€  Ðinformation€that€was€not€presented€at€the€earlier€hearing.€€For€example,€Kohl€claimed€that€althoughÐ #l! Ðshe€had€conducted€"several€hundred"€traffic€stops€while€working€with€the€Drug€Task€Force,€onlyÐ $X" Ðapproximately€ten€resulted€in€seizures€of€some€kind€of€narcotics.€€Kohl€also€testified€that€when€sheÐ ô$D # Ðwitnessed€the€defendant's€vehicle€swerving€within€its€own€lane,€in€addition€to€being€concerned€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€driver€was€potentially€intoxicated,€she€was€also€concerned€that€perhaps€the€driver€"was€gettingÐ Ì&"% Ðtired€and€maybe€he's€going€to€fall€asleep€at€the€wheel."€€Officer€Kohl€also€testified€that€because€theÐ ¸'#& Ðwindows€of€the€vehicle€being€driven€by€the€defendant€were€tinted,€she€did€not€actually€view€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefendant€until€she€had€stopped€the€vehicle€and€spoke€to€the€defendant€from€the€passenger€side€ofÐ )à$( Ðthe€vehicle.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àKohl€testified€that€the€interior€of€the€vehicle€was€littered€with€various€items€including€aÐ ° Ðgallon€jug€of€water,€soda€cans,€empty€juice€containers,€and€half„eaten€sandwiches.€€In€contrast€to€theÐ œì Ðdefendant's€claim€that€he€was€occasionally€stopping€at€rest€areas,€Officer€Kohl€said€she€saw€noÐ ˆØ Ðblankets€or€pillows€in€the€vehicle's€interior.€€Kohl€stated€that€the€condition€of€the€interior€of€theÐ tÄ Ðvehicle,€combined€with€the€defendant's€inconsistent€responses€to€her€questions€concerning€hisÐ `° Ðdestination,€indicated€to€her€that€perhaps€the€defendant€was€transporting€narcotics.€€Based€upon€thisÐ L œ Ðsuspicion,€she€radioed€for€a€drug„detection€dog€handler€and€prepared€a€"Consent€to€Search"€form.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÒ°°ÒÒ°°Òà  àKohl€testified€that€when€she€asked€the€defendant€if€he€was€carrying€weapons€or€illegal€drugs,Ð  ` Ðthe€defendant€became€nervous€and€offered€to€let€her€examine€the€vehicle's€trunk.€€Kohl€claimed€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€defendant's€invitation€to€look€into€the€trunk€only€increased€her€suspicion,€"[I]n€the€past€when€IÐ è 8  Ðfound€drugs€that€weren't€in€the€trunk,€people€always€want€you€to€look€in€the€trunk.€And,€to€me,Ð Ô$  Ðthey're€trying€to€divert€my€attention€away€from€where€[the€drugs]€are€[located]."€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àConversely,€at€trial,€the€defendant€testified,€through€an€interpreter,€that€he€did€not€state€toÐ ˜è  ÐOfficer€Kohl€during€the€traffic€stop€that€he€did€not€know€where€he€was€going€in€Georgia.€€He€alsoÐ „Ô  Ðclaimed€that€he€did€not€tell€Kohl€that€a€cousin€owned€the€vehicle€that€he€was€driving.€€Moreover,€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€denied€offering€to€let€Kohl€search€the€trunk.€€However,€the€defendant€did€testify€that€heÐ \¬ Ðconsented€in€writing€to€the€search€with€the€full€understanding€that€he€could€revoke€his€consent€at€anyÐ H˜ Ðtime.€€Ð 4„ Ðà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€possession€of€oneÐ  p Ðthousand€grams€or€more€of€methamphetamine.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€twentyÐ  \ Ðyears€incarceration€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.Ð øH ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€the€initial€traffic€stop€and€Officer€Kohl'sÐ Ð  Ðcontinued€detention€of€the€defendant€were€not€based€upon€reasonable€suspicion€and€were€in€violationÐ ¼  Ðof€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€TennesseeÐ ¨ø ÐConstitution.€€However,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€the€defendant€freely€and€voluntarilyÐ ”ä Ðconsented€to€the€search€and,€because€the€consent€was€sufficiently€attenuated€from€the€unlawful€trafficÐ €Ð Ðstop,€the€exclusionary€rule€did€not€bar€introduction€of€the€seized€methamphetamine.€€Ultimately,€theÐ l¼ ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€reversed€the€defendant's€conviction€and€remanded€the€case€for€a€new€trialÐ X ¨ Ðbased€upon€the€improper€testimony€of€a€Houston,€Texas,€police€officer€during€trial.€€Thereafter,€weÐ D!” Ðgranted€the€defendant€permission€to€appeal€on€the€following€issue:€€whether€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ 0"€  ÐAppeals€erred€by€refusing€to€suppress€evidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€the€defendant's€traffic€stop.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€reverse€that€portion€of€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ ô$D # ÐAppeals€finding€the€consent€sufficiently€attenuated€from€the€illegal€stop€to€render€the€search€legal.€Ð à%0!$ ÐHaving€thoroughly€reviewed€the€record€in€this€case€and€the€applicable€authorities,€we€hold€that€theÐ Ì&"% Ðinitial€stop€and€continued€detention€of€the€defendant€in€this€case€were€not€based€upon€reasonableÐ ¸'#& Ðsuspicion€of€criminal€activity€and€thus€violated€both€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐWe€also€hold€that€the€defendant's€consent€was€not€sufficiently€attenuated€from€the€unlawful€stop;Ð )à$( Ðâ âthus,€the€evidence€seized€in€the€defendant's€traffic€stop€was€fruit€of€the€poisonous€tree€and€shouldÐ |*Ì%) Ðhave€been€excluded.€€Accordingly,€the€defendant's€conviction€is€reversed,€and€this€case€is€remandedÐ ° Ðto€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€County€for€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€Ð œì Ðâ âÌÓ  Óò òSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWÐ tÄ ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àó óThe€instant€case€involves€appellate€review€of€a€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€and€conclusionsÐ L œ Ðof€law€in€denying€a€motion€to€suppress.€€The€issue€of€whether€reasonable€suspicion€existed€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðvalidate€a€traffic€stop€is€a€mixed€question€of€fact€and€law.€€We€review€the€factual€determinations€ofÐ $ t Ða€trial€court€under€the€standard€articulated€in€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996).€€In€òòOdomóó,Ð  ` Ðwe€held€that€"a€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€in€a€suppression€hearing€will€be€upheld€unless€theÐ ü L  Ðevidence€preponderates€otherwise."€€òòId.óó€at€23.€€Additionally,€"[q]uestions€regarding€witnessÐ è 8  Ðcredibility€and€'resolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€trial€judge.'"€€òòStateÐ Ô$  Ðv.€Waltonóó,€41€S.W.3d€75,€81€(Tenn.€2001)€(quoting€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.3d€at€23).Ð À  ÐÌà  àIn€arguing€that€there€was€reasonable€suspicion€to€validate€the€defendant's€traffic€stop€in€thisÐ ˜è  Ðcase,€the€State€argues€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€failed€to€give€proper€weight€to€the€trialÐ „Ô  Ðcourt's€findings€of€fact€by€applying€an€erroneous€standard€of€review.€€The€State€maintains€that€theÐ pÀ ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€wrongly€applied€the€òòóóstandard€of€review€to€the€findings€of€facts€that€weÐ \¬ Ðarticulated€in€òòState€v.€Binetteóó,€33S.W.3d€215,€217€(Tenn.€2000),€rather€than€the€proper€òòOdomóóÐ H˜ Ð"preponderance"€standard.€€In€òòBinetteóó,€we€applied€a€òòde€novo€óóstandard€of€review€with€no€presumptionÐ 4„ Ðof€correctness€to€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€because€the€only€evidence€presented€on€behalf€ofÐ  p Ðthe€State€at€the€suppression€hearing€was€a€videotape€of€the€defendant's€alleged€driving€errors.€€òòId.óó€Ð  \ ÐOur€rationale€for€so€holding€was€that€"when€a€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€on€a€motion€to€suppressÐ øH Ðare€basedòò€solely€óóon€evidence€that€does€not€involve€issues€of€credibility,€appellate€courts€are€just€asÐ ä4 Ðcapable€to€review€the€evidence€and€draw€their€own€conclusions."€€òòId.óó€(emphasis€added).€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€contrast€to€òòBinetteóó,€in€the€instant€case€the€State€presented€the€testimony€of€Officer€KohlÐ ¨ø Ðin€addition€to€the€videotape€of€the€circumstances€that€led€to€his€traffic€stop.€€Moreover,€in€its€orderÐ ”ä Ðdenying€the€defendant's€motion€to€suppress,€the€trial€court€specifically€accredited€Officer€Kohl'sÐ €Ð Ðtestimony.€€Nevertheless,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reviewed€the€trial€court's€findings€of€factÐ l¼ Ðòòde€novo€óóclaiming€that€"in€[the€trial€court's]€order€denying€the€[defend]ant's€motion€to€suppress,€theÐ X ¨ Ðtrial€court€ultimately€cites€its€own€observations€of€the€videotape€recording€in€support€of€itsÐ D!” Ðdetermination€of€reasonable€suspicion."€€Because€the€testimony€of€Officer€Kohl€involves€issues€ofÐ 0"€  Ðcredibility,€we€will€review€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€under€the€òòOdomóó€standard.€€In€reviewingÐ #l! Ðthese€findings€of€fact,€we€note€that€the€testimony€presented€at€trial€may€also€"be€considered€by€anÐ $X" Ðappellate€court€in€deciding€the€propriety€of€the€trial€court's€ruling€on€the€motion€to€suppress."€Ð ô$D # ÐòòWaltonóó,€41€S.W.3d€at€81€(quoting€òòState€v.€Perryóó,€13€S.W.3d€724,€737€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997));Ð à%0!$ ÐòòState€v.€Henningóó,€975€S.W.2d€290,€299€(Tenn.€1998).€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àHowever,€while€we€afford€some€deference€to€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact,€the€applicationÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€the€law€to€those€facts€is€a€question€of€law€which€this€Court€reviews€òòde€novo€óówith€no€presumptionÐ )à$( Ðof€correctness.€€òòState€v.€Yeargenóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629€(Tenn.€1997)€(citing€òòBeare€Co.€v.€TennesseeÐ |*Ì%) ÐDep't€of€Revenueóó,€858€S.W.2d€906,€907€(Tenn.€1993)).€Ð h+¸&* ÐÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óò òANALYSISÐ œì ÐÌREASONABLE€SUSPICIONó óÐ tÄ ÐÓ  Óà  àÌà  àThe€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€guarantees€that€"the€right€of€theÐ L œ Ðpeople€to€be€secure€.€.€.€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures€shall€not€be€violated€and€noÐ 8 ˆ Ðwarrants€shall€issue,€but€upon€probable€cause."׃k×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Likewise,€Article€I,€section€7€of€the€TennesseeÐ $ t ÐConstitution€guarantees€"that€the€people€shall€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers€andÐ  ` Ðpossessions,€from€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures€.€.€.€."€€We€have€often€noted€that€Article€I,Ð ü L  Ðsection€7€of€our€state€constitution€"is€identical€in€intent€and€purpose€with€the€Fourth€Amendment."€Ð è 8  ÐòòBinetteóó,€33€S.W.3d€at€218€(citing€òòSneed€v.€Stateóó,€423€S.W.2d€857,€860€(Tenn.€1968)).€€Thus,€theÐ Ô$  Ðlanguage€of€both€the€federal€and€state€constitutions€mandate€that€"a€warrantless€search€or€seizure€isÐ À  Ðpresumed€unreasonable,€and€the€evidence€discovered€as€a€result€thereof€is€subject€to€suppressionÐ ¬ü  Ðunless€the€State€demonstrates€that€the€search€or€seizure€was€conducted€pursuant€to€one€of€theÐ ˜è  Ðnarrowly€defined€exceptions€to€the€warrant€requirement."€€òòYearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€629;€òòsee€alsoóóÐ „Ô  ÐòòCoolidge€v.€New€Hampshireóó,€403€U.S.€443,€454„55,€91€S.Ct.€2022,€29€L.Ed.2d€564€(1971).Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThough€a€warrant€is€normally€required€when€a€police€officer€intrudes€upon€the€privacy€ofò ò€ó óaÐ H˜ Ðcitizen,€òòseeóó€òòINS€v.€Del€Gadoóó,€466€U.S.€210,€216,€104€S.Ct.€1758,€1762€(1984),€there€are€exceptionsÐ 8ˆ Ðto€the€warrant€requirement.€€One€exception€exists€"when€a€police€officer€makes€an€investigatory€stopÐ $t Ðbased€upon€reasonable€suspicion,€supported€by€specific€and€articulable€facts,€that€a€criminal€offenseÐ ` Ðhas€been€or€is€about€to€be€committed."€€òòBinetteóó,€33€S.W.3d€at€218€(citing€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,Ð üL Ð20„21,€88€S.Ct.€1868,€20€L.Ed.2d€889€(1968)).€€We€have€noted€that€"[u]pon€turning€on€the€blue€lightsÐ è8 Ðof€a€vehicle,€a€police€officer€has€clearly€initiated€a€stop€and€has€seized€the€subject€of€the€stop€withinÐ Ô$ Ðthe€meaning€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€of€the€Federal€Constitution€and€Article€I,€section€7€of€theÐ À ÐTennessee€Constitution."€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòState€v.€Pulleyóó,€863€S.w.2d€29,€30€(Tenn.€1993)).€€Accordingly,Ð ¬ü Ðin€the€instant€case,€when€Officer€Kohl€stopped€Garcia's€vehicle€by€turning€on€her€blue€lights,€sheÐ ˜è Ðmust€have€had€reasonable€suspicion,€supported€by€specific€and€articulable€facts,€that€the€defendantÐ „Ô Ðhad€committed,€or€was€about€to€commit,€a€criminal€offense€in€order€for€the€stop€to€be€constitutionallyÐ pÀ Ðvalid.Ð \ ¬ ÐÌà  àDetermining€whether€reasonable€suspicion€existed€in€a€particular€traffic€stop€is€a€fact„Ð 4"„  Ðintensive€and€objective€analysis.€€The€United€State€Supreme€Court€has€stated€that€"[i]n€determiningÐ  #p! Ðwhether€a€police€officer's€reasonable€suspicion€is€supported€by€specific€and€articulable€facts,€a€courtÐ  $\" Ðmust€consider€the€totality€of€the€circumstances."€€òòAlabama€v.€Whiteóó,€496€U.S.€325,€330,€110€S.Ct.Ð ø$H # Ð2412,€110€L.Ed.2d€301€(1990)€(citing€òòUnited€State€v.€Cortezóó,€449€U.S.€411,€417,€101€S.Ct.€690,€66Ð ä%4!$ ÐL.Ed.2d€621€(1981));€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Bridgesóó,€963€S.W.2d€487,€492€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð Ð& "% Ðâ âÐ ¼' #& Ðà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€defendant,€citing€this€Court's€decision€in€òòBinetteóó,€argues€that€there€wasÐ ° Ðâ âno€reasonable€suspicion€to€validate€the€initial€traffic€stop.€€In€òòBinetteóó,€the€defendant€was€convictedÐ œì Ðfor€DUI€after€being€stopped€by€a€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€police€officer.€€The€officer€had€followedÐ ˆØ ÐBinette€for€several€minutes€and€videotaped€the€defendant's€driving€before€stopping€him.€€During€theÐ tÄ Ðvideotape,€the€officer€made€several€comments€about€driving€errors€he€claimed€were€being€made€byÐ `° ÐBinette,€including€speeding,€crossing€the€yellow€line,€and€swerving€within€his€own€lane€all€the€wayÐ L œ Ðto€the€center€line.€€Upon€a€òòde€novo€óóreview,€this€Court€reversed€the€defendant's€conviction€holdingÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€"[w]hile€Binette€did€move€laterally€at€times€within€his€lane€while€operating€his€vehicle,€we€findÐ $ t Ðthat€his€movement€was€not€pronounced,€and€therefore€did€not€give€rise€to€reasonable€suspicion."€Ð  ` ÐòòBinetteóó,€33€S.W.2d€at€220.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àConversely,€the€State€argues€in€this€case€that€the€following€specific€and€articulable€facts€gaveÐ Ô$  Ðrise€to€a€reasonable€suspicion€that€the€defendant€was€either€intoxicated€while€operating€his€vehicleÐ À  Ðor€falling€asleep€shortly€before€being€stopped€by€Officer€Kohl:€1)€the€defendant€was€weaving€backÐ ¬ü  Ðand€forth€within€his€own€lane€in€a€continual€manner€in€Davidson€County;€and€2)€there€wasÐ ˜è  Ðconsiderable€high„speed€traffic,€some€of€which€can€be€seen€braking€when€approaching€Garcia'sÐ „Ô  Ðvehicle€and€trying€to€pass.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àWe€have€viewed€the€videotape€and€reviewed€the€testimony€of€Officer€Kohl€pertaining€to€theÐ H˜ Ðdefendant's€driving€shortly€before€the€traffic€stop.€€Much€like€òòBinetteóó,€we€find€no€evidence€"ofÐ 4„ Ðpronounced€weaving€or€hard€swerving"€by€Garcia.€€òòBinetteóó,€33€S.W.3d€at€219.€€In€fact,€despite€theÐ  p Ðtestimony€of€Officer€Kohl,€we€are€unable€to€detect€any€weaving€upon€viewing€the€videotape.׃i×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€WeÐ  \ Ðalso€note€that€both€the€majority€and€dissenting€opinions€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€this€caseÐ øH Ðconcluded€that€the€defendant€remained€within€his€lane€at€all€times€and€did€not€exhibit€any€weavingÐ ä4 Ðthat€was€either€exaggerated€or€pronounced.€€However,€"[t]he€number€of€times€that€a€vehicle€touchesÐ Ð  Ða€center€line€or€drifts€within€a€lane€is€not€dispositive"€of€whether€reasonable€suspicion€existed€toÐ ¼  Ðvalidate€a€traffic€stop.€€òòId.óó€"Rather,€as€we€have€previously€noted,€a€court€must€consider€the€totalityÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€circumstances€in€determining€whether€reasonable€suspicion€was€present€at€the€time€a€stop€wasÐ ”ä Ðinitiated."€€òòId.óó€Ð €Ð ÐÌÒ°°Òà  àPrior€to€Officer€Kohl's€stop€of€the€defendant,€the€videotape€reveals€that€Garcia€was€travelingÐ X ¨ Ðat€what€appears€to€be€a€safe€rate€of€speed€in€the€far€right€lane€of€an€interstate€highway.€€The€videotapeÐ D!” Ðalso€reveals€that€Garcia€slowly€moved€his€vehicle€slightly€within€his€lane€of€travel€approximatelyÐ 0"€  Ðtwice€over€a€period€of€approximately€two€minutes.€€At€no€point€does€the€vehicle€exhibit€any€sharpÐ #l! Ðor€jerking€movements.€€While€there€is€a€short€period€of€time€when€the€vehicle€is€not€visible€on€theÐ $X" Ðvideotape,€we€find€no€testimony€in€the€record€suggesting€that€the€defendant€exhibited€anyÐ ô$D # Ðpronounced€or€exaggerated€swerving€during€that€brief€time€period.€€Moreover,€we€place€little€weightÐ à%0!$ Ðon€the€fact€that€there€was€considerable€traffic€on€the€interstate€on€the€night€of€the€defendant's€trafficÐ Ì&"% Ðstop.€€The€videotape€reveals€that€several€cars€approached€the€defendant€from€the€rear€and€easilyÐ ¸'#& Ðpassed€his€vehicle€by€moving€to€the€next€lane.€€Additionally,€the€State€does€not€contest€that€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€was€driving€in€compliance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„8„123(1)€(1998),Ð œì Ðwhich€states:Ð ˆØ ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒWhenever€any€roadway€has€been€divided€into€two€(2)€or€more€clearlyÐ tÄ Ðmarked€lanes€for€traffic€.€.€.€[a]€vehicle€shall€be€driven€as€nearly€asÐ `° Ðpracticable€entirely€within€a€single€lane€and€shall€not€be€moved€fromÐ L œ Ðsuch€lane€until€the€driver€has€first€ascertained€that€such€movement€canÐ 8 ˆ Ðbe€made€safely€.€.€.€.Ð $ t ÐÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒAt€the€suppression€hearing,€the€State€introduced€section€12.68.170€of€the€Metropolitan€NashvilleÐ  ` ÐCode€which€proscribes€driving€carelessly€"so€as€.€.€.€to€endanger€the€life,€limb,€or€property€of€anyÐ ü L  Ðperson."€€Given€that€Officer€Kohl€testified€that€she€did€not€witness€the€defendant€speed,€drive€tooÐ è 8  Ðslowly,€cross€any€lanes€of€traffic,€illegally€pass€another€vehicle,€follow€too€closely,€commit€aÐ Ô$  Ðviolation€regarding€use€of€the€turning€signal,€or€drive€on€the€shoulder,€we€agree€with€the€lower€courtÐ À  Ðthat€neither€the€videotape€nor€Officer€Kohl's€testimony€reflect€that,€at€the€time€he€was€pulled€over,Ð ¬ü  Ðthe€defendant€was€currently€endangering€"the€life,€limb,€or€property€of€any€person."€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àIn€short,€in€accordance€with€the€Ôb  ÔòòOdomóóÔb;¡Ô€standard,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court's€findingsÐ pÀ Ðof€fact€at€the€suppression€hearing€are€not€supported€by€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€Ð \¬ ÐAccordingly,€we€hold€that€as€a€matter€of€law€there€was€no€reasonable€suspicion€to€stop€Garcia.€Ð H˜ ÐWhile€the€defendant's€driving€may€not€have€been€perfect,€we€saw€no€evidence€of€weaving€on€theÐ 4„ Ðvideotape,€and€we€reiterate€that€"it€is€the€rare€motorist€indeed€who€can€travel€for€several€milesÐ  p Ðwithout€occasionally€varying€speed€unnecessarily,€moving€laterally€from€time€to€time€in€theÐ  \ Ðmotorist's€own€lane,€nearing€the€center€line€or€shoulder,€or€exhibiting€some€small€imperfection€in€hisÐ øH Ðor€her€driving."€€òòBinetteóó,€33€S.W.3d€at€219€(quoting€òòState€v.€Binetteóó,€1999€WL€427606€at€*2€(Tenn.Ð ä4 ÐCrim.€App.€1999)€(Smith,€J.,€dissenting)).Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óò òATTENUATIONÐ ¨ø Ðó óÓ  Óà0  àÐ (#(# Ðà  àHaving€determined€that€there€was€no€reasonable€suspicion€to€stop€the€defendant,€the€nextÐ €Ð Ðinquiry€is€whether€the€evidence€discovered€during€the€illegal€stop€must€be€suppressed.€€Although€theÐ l¼ ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€the€evidence€was€obtained€during€an€unlawful€stop€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðdefendant,€it€nevertheless€held€that€the€exclusionary€rule€would€not€bar€introduction€of€theÐ D!” Ðdiscovered€methamphetamine€because€Garcia's€consent€to€search€the€vehicle€was€sufficientlyÐ 0"€  Ðattenuated€from€the€unlawful€seizure.€€We€disagree.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€history€and€purpose€of€the€exclusionary€rule€have€been€well€chronicled.€€In€òòWong€SunÐ ô$D # Ðv.€United€Statesóó,€371€U.S.€471,€484,€83€S.Ct.€407€(1963),€the€Supreme€Court€acknowledged€that€itÐ à%0!$ Ðacts€as€a€prophylactic€guard€to€bar€the€admissibility€of€evidence€obtained€in€violation€of€anÐ Ì&"% Ðindividual's€Fourth€Amendment€rights.€€However,€the€Court€refused€to€hold€that€all€evidenceÐ ¸'#& Ðobtained€as€a€result€of€police€misconduct€would€be€considered€"'fruit€of€the€poisonous€tree'€simplyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbecause€[the€evidence]€would€not€have€come€to€light€but€for€the€illegal€actions€of€the€police."€€òòId.óó€atÐ )à$( Ð487„88.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àWe€note€at€the€outset€that€"a€consent€to€search€that€is€preceded€by€an€illegal€seizure€is€notÐ ° Ð'fruit€of€the€poisonous€tree'€if€the€consent€is€both:€1)€voluntary,€and€2)€not€an€exploitation€of€the€priorÐ œì Ðillegality."€€òòSeeóó€Wayne€LaFave,€3€òòSearch€and€Seizureóó€ðð€8.2(d)€at€656€(3d€ed.€1996).€€In€this€case,€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant€does€not€argue€that€his€consent€was€involuntary.€€He€clearly€acknowledged€at€trial€that€heÐ tÄ Ðvoluntarily€signed€the€consent€to€search€form€prepared€by€Officer€Kohl,€fully€understanding€that€heÐ `° Ðcould€revoke€his€consent€at€any€time.€€Thus,€the€issue€before€us€is€whether€the€defendant's€consentÐ L œ Ðwas€an€exploitation€of€the€prior€unlawful€seizure.׃q×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àWe€have€previously€noted€that€attenuation€issues€are€highly€factual.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Huddlestonóó,Ð  ` Ð924€S.W.2d€666,€674€(Tenn.€1996).€€In€making€our€evaluation,€we€look€to€the€factors€articulated€byÐ ü L  Ðthe€Supreme€Court€in€òòBrown€v.€Illinoisóó,€442€U.S.€590,€603„04,€95€S.Ct.€2254,€45€L.Ed.2d€416Ð è 8  Ð(1975).€€Though€the€òòBrownóó€factors€were€designed€to€aid€courts€in€determining€whether€a€confessionÐ Ô$  Ðwas€obtained€by€exploitation€of€an€illegal€arrest,€these€factors€may€also€be€used€by€courts€to€evaluateÐ À  Ðwhether€the€causal€connection€between€an€unlawful€seizure€and€a€subsequent€consent€has€beenÐ ¬ü  Ðbroken,€i.e.€whether€the€primary€taint€of€an€unlawful€seizure€has€been€sufficiently€attenuated€fromÐ ˜è  Ðthe€voluntary€consent.€€The€òòBrownóó€factors€are€as€follows:€1)€the€temporal€proximity€of€the€illegalÐ „Ô  Ðseizure€and€consent;€2)€the€presence€of€intervening€circumstances;€and€3)€the€purpose€and€flagrancyÐ pÀ Ðof€the€official€misconduct.€€òòId.óó׃rÞ×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Additionally,€we€note€that€the€burden€of€showing€attenuation€liesÐ \¬ Ðwith€the€State.€€òòSeeóó€€òòBrownóó,€422€U.S.€at€604.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€first€òòBrownóó€factor€for€our€consideration€is€the€temporal€proximity€of€the€illegal€seizureÐ  p Ðand€consent.€€Various€courts€addressing€this€factor€have€noted€that€"[a]€brief€time€lapse€between€aÐ  \ ÐFourth€Amendment€violation€and€consent€often€indicates€exploitation€[of€the€prior€illegal€policeÐ øH Ðaction]€because€the€effects€of€the€misconduct€have€not€had€time€to€dissipate."€€òòState€v.€Hansenóó,€63Ð ä4 ÐP.2d€650,€666€(Utah€2002)€(citing€òòState€v.€Shoulderbladeóó,€€905€P.2d€289,€293€(Utah€1995));€òòsee€alsoóóÐ Ð  ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Melendez„Garciaóó,€28€F.3d€1046,€1055€(10th€Cir.€1994);€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€571Ð ¼  ÐS.E.2d€703,€711€(S.C.€Ct.€App.€2002)€(finding€no€attenuation€where€only€a€minimal€time€passedÐ ¨ø Ðbetween€illegality€and€consent).€€Here,€the€lapse€of€time€between€the€illegal€detention€and€consentÐ ”ä Ðwas€negligible.€€The€illegal€detention€began€when€Officer€Kohl€turned€on€the€blue€lights€during€theÐ €Ð Ðtraffic€stop€and€did€not€end€until€she€told€Garcia€that€the€stop€was€complete.€€Immediately€thereafter,Ð l¼ ÐKohl€began€asking€the€defendant€more€questions€and€had€obtained€his€voluntary€written€consentÐ X ¨ Ðwithin€a€scant€few€minutes.€€Hence,€no€appreciable€time€passed€between€the€defendant's€unlawfulÐ D!” Ðdetention€and€the€consent€that€would€have€allowed€the€taint€of€the€misconduct€to€dissipate.Ó Ó€€Thus,Ð 0"€  Ðthis€factor€weighs€against€a€finding€of€attenuation.Ð #l! Ðâ âÐ $X" Ðà  àNext,€we€consider€whether€the€presence€of€intervening€circumstances€support€a€finding€ofÐ ° Ðâ âattenuation.€€The€State€argues€that€Officer€Kohl's€unequivocal€statement€to€the€defendant€that€he€wasÐ œì Ðfree€to€go€was€an€intervening€circumstance€which€purged€the€taint€of€the€prior€illegality.€€SeveralÐ ˆØ Ðcourts€have€held€that€communication€to€a€driver€that€he€or€she€is€free€to€go€prior€to€requestingÐ tÄ Ðconsent€serves€to€attenuate€the€consent€from€the€illegal€traffic€stop.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Ramosóó,€42Ð `° ÐF.3d€1160,€1163€(8th€Cir.€1994);€òòUnited€States€v.€Fernandezóó,€18€F.3d€874,€882€(10th€Cir.€1994);Ð L œ ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Ramstadóó,€120€F.Supp.2d€973,€980€(D.€Kan.€2000).€€While€we€agree€with€thoseÐ 8 ˆ Ðcourts€that€such€an€action€by€a€police€officer€does€act€as€an€intervening€circumstance€weighing€inÐ $ t Ðfavor€of€attenuation,€we€are€also€mindful€that€a€citizen€who€has€been€subjected€to€a€traffic€stop€is€notÐ  ` Ðlikely€to€walk€away€from€continued€police€questioning,€despite€being€told€that€he€or€she€is€free€toÐ ü L  Ðleave.€€òòSeeóó€òòCommonwealth€v.€Strickleróó,€757€A.2d€884,€898€(Pa.€2000)€(noting€that€the€"element€ofÐ è 8  Ðcoercion€is€obviously€enhanced€when€police€actually€detain€a€citizen€.€.€.€by€means€of€a€traffic€stop").€Ð Ô$  ÐIn€this€case,€the€defendant's€willingness€to€answer€more€of€Officer€Kohl's€questions€could€have€beenÐ À  Ðinfluenced€by€the€fact€that€another€police€car€with€flashing€blue€lights€had€arrived€on€the€scene€duringÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€traffic€stop.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àSeveral€commentators,€including€Harvard€Law€Professor€William€J.€Stuntz€have€opined€thatÐ pÀ Ð"ordinary€people€never€feel€free€to€terminate€a€conversation€with€a€police€officer."€€William€J.€Stuntz,Ð \¬ ÐòòTerry's€Impossibilityóó,€72€St.€John's€L.€Rev.€1213,€1215€(1998).€€The€Supreme€Court€of€VirginiaÐ H˜ Ðrecently€echoed€this€concern€in€a€case€similar€to€the€instant€case€when€it€held€that€a€motorist€who€wasÐ 4„ Ðtold€by€an€officer€that€he€was€"free€to€leave"€but€immediately€was€asked€questions€concerningÐ  p Ðwhether€he€had€any€weapons€or€drugs€was€re„seized€upon€continued€questioning.€€òòReittinger€v.Ð  \ ÐCommonwealthóó,€532€S.E.2d€25,€28€(Va.€2000).€€Thus,€while€we€acknowledge€the€fact€that€GarciaÐ øH Ðwas€told€he€was€free€to€go,€we€give€this€factor€little€weight€given€the€immediacy€with€which€OfficerÐ ä4 ÐKohl€began€questioning€the€defendant€after€telling€him€he€was€free€to€leave€and€the€presence€of€theÐ Ð  Ðother€police€cruiser.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àFinally,€we€consider€the€purpose€and€flagrancy€of€the€official€misconduct.€€The€final€òòBrownóóÐ ”ä Ðfactor€we€consider€particularly€important€because€it€is€most€closely€tied€to€the€rationale€of€theÐ €Ð Ðexclusionary€rule€„„€to€discourage€police€misconduct.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrownóó,€422€U.S.€at€604;€òòHuddlestonóó,€924Ð l¼ ÐS.W.2d€at€676;€òòState€v.€Richteróó,€612€N.W.2d€29,€41€(Wis.€2000).€€In€this€case,€there€was€noÐ X ¨ Ðreasonable€suspicion€to€stop€the€defendant.€€However,€assuming€òòarguendoóó€that€Officer€Kohl€hadÐ D!” Ðreasonable€suspicion€to€suspect€that€the€defendant€was€intoxicated,€by€her€own€account,€Kohl€knewÐ 0"€  Ðtwo€minutes€into€the€stop€that€the€defendant€was€not€intoxicated.€€Yet,€she€retained€his€driver'sÐ #l! Ðlicense€and€vehicle€registration,€wrote€out€a€warning€ticket€even€though€no€crime€had€beenÐ $X" Ðcommitted€by€the€defendant,€prepared€a€consent€to€search€form€in€Spanish,€and€radioed€for€a€drug„Ð ô$D # Ðdetection€dog.€€All€these€actions€were€taken€despite€there€being€no€reasonable€suspicion€that€theÐ à%0!$ Ðdefendant€was€engaged€in€criminal€activity.€€Kohl's€status€as€a€member€of€the€drug€task€force€addsÐ Ì&"% Ðto€the€likelihood€that€her€prolonged€and€unreasonable€detention€of€the€defendant€was€for€the€soleÐ ¸'#& Ðpurpose€of€obtaining€consent€to€search€his€vehicle.€€Under€such€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefendant's€consent€was€gained€in€exploitation€of€the€unlawful€detention.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àIn€his€dissenting€opinion€in€the€court€below,€Judge€John€Everett€Williams€emphasized€thatÐ ° Ðâ âthe€extended€detention€of€the€defendant€revealed€that€the€defendant's€consent€was€obtained€byÐ œì Ðexploitation€of€the€prior€illegality:Ð ˆØ ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °Ò[T]he€issuance€of€the€warning€ticket€resulted€in€the€continuation€of€anÐ tÄ Ðunlawful€detention,€and€appears€to€have€been€pre„text€to€allow€theÐ `° Ðofficer€the€opportunity€to€prepare€a€consent€form€in€Spanish.€€TheÐ L œ Ðwarning€ticket€took€some€ten€to€twelve€minutes€to€issue.€.€.€.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌMy€review€of€the€record€and€video€tape€(sic)€revealed€a€perfectlyÐ  ` Ðchoreographed€performance€by€the€officer€subjectively€calculated€toÐ ü L  Ðand€objectively€resulting€in€exploitation€of€the€illegal€stop€andÐ è 8  Ðdetention€of€the€defendant€in€order€to€obtain€his€consent€to€search.€Ð Ô$  ÐAssuming€arguendo€that€the€purpose€of€the€illegal€stop€was€not€toÐ À  Ðobtain€consent€to€search€the€vehicle,€the€continued€detention€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendant€under€the€guise€of€issuing€a€warning€ticket€was€clearly€inÐ ˜è  Ðpursuance€of€a€conscious€objective€to€obtain€consent€to€search.Ð „Ô  ÐÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒòòState€v.€Garciaóó,€No.€M2000„01760„CCA„R3„CD,€at€2„3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€May€15,€2001)€(filed€atÐ pÀ ÐNashville)€(Williams,€J.,€dissenting).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAfter€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€agree€with€Judge€Williams€that€Officer€Kohl'sÐ 4„ Ðattempt€to€gain€the€defendant's€consent€to€search€the€vehicle€was€done€through€exploitation€of€theÐ  p Ðillegal€detention€of€the€defendant.€€Officer€Kohl's€(unreasonable)€suspicion€that€the€defendant€wasÐ  \ Ðintoxicated€was€quelled€two€minutes€into€the€traffic€stop.€€As€a€result,€she€had€no€reasonable€basisÐ øH Ðto€detain€the€defendant.€€Likewise,€because€the€defendant€had€broken€no€traffic€law,€we€questionÐ ä4 Ðunder€what€authority€she€issued€the€warning€ticket.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€this€factor€weighs€againstÐ Ð  Ða€finding€of€attenuation.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€after€due€consideration€of€the€òòBrownóó€attenuation€factors,€we€conclude€that€theÐ ”ä ÐState€has€failed€to€carry€its€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€consent€was€sufficiently€attenuated€fromÐ €Ð Ðthe€unlawful€detention.€Thus,€we€are€constrained€to€hold€that€the€methamphetamine,€obtained€duringÐ l¼ Ðan€unlawful€detention€of€the€defendant,€should€have€been€suppressed.Ð X ¨ ÐÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÐ 0"€  ÐÌòòÔb  ÔóóÓ  Óà  àIn€sum,€we€hold€that€the€traffic€stop€of€the€defendant€in€this€case€was€not€based€uponÐ $X" Ðreasonable€suspicion€in€violation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€and€Article€I,€section€7.€We€also€holdÐ ô$D # Ðthat€although€the€defendant's€consent€to€search€his€vehicle€was€given€voluntarily,€the€evidence€seizedÐ à%0!$ Ðmust€be€suppressed€because€the€consent€was€not€sufficiently€attenuated€from€the€unlawful€detention.€Ð Ì&"% ÐAccordingly,€€the€defendant's€conviction€is€reversed,€and€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Criminal€CourtÐ ¸'#& Ðfor€Davidson€County€for€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€State€of€Tennessee,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÐ |*Ì%) Ðnecessary.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_____________________________Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUSTICEÔ#†¼^»XX ß#Ô