# FILED March 23, 1999 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JANUARY SESSION, 1999 STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9803- CC-00126 ) Appellee, ) ) ) DICKSON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. ALLEN W. WA LLACE, MICHAEL ALLE N PRICE, ) JUDGE ) Appe llant. ) (Certif ied Question; Search and Seizure)

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUI T COURT OF DICKSON C OUNTY
FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : MICHAEL J. FLANAGAN JOHN KNOX WALKUP 95 White Bridge Road #208 Attorney Generaland Reporter Nashvill e, TN 37205 KIM R. HELPER Assistant Attorney General 425 Fifth Avenu e North Nashvill e, TN 37243 DAN ALSOBROOKS Distri ct Attorney General ROBERT WILS ON Assistant Distri ct Attorney General P.O. Box 580 Charlotte, TN 37036
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED DAVID H. WELLES , JUD GE-2- 

# OPINION

The Defen dant, Mic hael Allen Price, pleaded g uilty to one count of possession of

LSD with inte nt to se ll and one count of poss ession of marijuana with intent to sel l. He reserved a certif ied questi on of law—whether suf ficien t articula ble facts exi sted to j ustify a reasonabl e sus pic ion supporti ng an investigatory stop of Defendant’s vehicl e—which we now address. We conclude thatthe investi gatory stop was based on specifi c and artic ulable facts such that the officer h ad rea sona ble suspicion that Defendant possessed il legal narcotics.

On September 19, 1997, officers se ized 440 grams of mari juana and 50 squares, or “h its ,” of

LSD from Defen dant’s person and vehicle. Officer S tewart Goodwin, the Dicks on County narcot ics off icer who eff ected the sei zure, prov ided the only testimony at

the trial court’s hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress. Based upon his test imony , we affirm the decision of the tri al court t

o admit the seized e vidence
.
Acc ording to Offic er Go odwin , he rec eived a teleph one c all f rom a n informant

with whom he had previousl y worked to facilitate ap proxima tely twenty drug “buys” over the course of two year s. Goodwin stated that ever y time the informant told him he had order ed drugs from a deal er, the i nformanthad been correct, and Goodwin consideredhim r eli abl e. On this occasi on, the in formant told Good win that he heard fro m a frien d th at D efendant deal t drugs. Af ter consu lti n g with Goo dwin, the in forman t ordered a poun d of ma rijuana an d fifty hits of LSD, to be deli vered on September 19, 1997.-3- T he inform ant told Office r Goo dwin th at the d ealer, a white m ale in h is early twenties named Michael Pri ce, would del iver t he drugs with an other m ale in a white ve hicle with o ut-of-cou nty plates to the Perfe ct Pig resta urant in W hite Bluff at 10:00 to

1 0:30 p .m. on Sep tember 19 . Goodwin a nd two other o fficers waited forthe vehicl e, which appeared at 10:40 t hat evening, after t he restaurant had closed . The v ehicle , which Goo dwin s tated “e xactly” fit the descript ion given by the informan t, entered the park ing lot of the Perfect P ig, slowly t rave led through the lot, and then exited onto Hig hway 70
.
Officer Goodwin act ivat ed his bl ue lig hts and followe d the v ehicle, which did not yiel d to the officers for at least a mil e, untilit had reac hed the county l ine of Cheatham County. There i s no question t ha t after Goodwin performed t he investigatory stop, he gat her ed su fficient prob able cau se to arre st Defen dant. The sole issue certif ied to thi s Court is whet her Goodwin possessed suf ficien t reaso nable suspicio n prior to acti vating hi s blue li ghts, thus initi ating the Terry stop. See Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S . 1 (1968 ); Whren v. United States , 51 7 U.S. 806, 809- 1 0 (1996) (“Temporar y detenti on of indi viduals during the stop of an autom obile by the poli ce, even if only for a br ief peri od and for a limited purpose, constit utes the ‘s eizure’of ‘pe rsons’ wi thin the me aning o f [the Fou rth Amen dment].”).

The United States Supreme Court in Dela ware v. Prouse , 440 U.S. 648 (1979), s tated,

Except in those situati ons in which there is at leas t articula ble and reaso nable suspicio n that . . . either t he vehicle or an occupant is o therwise subj ect to sei zure for v iolati on of law, stopping an aut omo bile and detaining the driver in order to che ck his drive r' s-4- license and the regi strati on of the automobi le a re unre ason able under th e Fourth Ame ndme nt. Id. at 663. I n additi on, when evaluat ing whe ther a po lice office r’s reas onab le suspicion is supp orted b y spec ific and articula ble facts, a court must consi der the totality of the ci rcumstances
. Stat e v. Watkins , 827 S.W.2d 293, 294 (Tenn. 1992).

In State v. Pulley , 863 S.W.2d 29 (Tenn. 1993), oursupreme court uphe ld the constit utionality of an i nvestigatory stopo f a vehicl e based upon an inform ant’s tip and concl uded that tr aditional Jacu min criteria s hould be use d to determine whether the t ip is “suffic iently reliabl e” to support a findi ng of reaso nable suspicion. Id. at 32 (referen cing State v. Jacu min , 778 S.W.2d 430, 436 (Tenn. 19 89) (holding th at the Te nness ee Co nstitution re quires fac ts indicating an inform ant’s basis of kno wledge an d veracity or credibility)).

As the United States Supreme Court expr essed, Rea sona ble suspicion i s a less demanding standard t h an proba ble caus e not o nly in the sense that reasonable suspi cion can be establi shed with i nformation t hat is di fferent in quanti ty or content than that requi red to establ ish probabl e cause, but also in the sense thatreasonable suspicion can arise f rom information that i s less reliable tha n that req uired to sh ow prob able cau se. A labam a v. Wh ite , 496 U.S. 32 5, 330 (1990 ). Recently, our sup reme cou rt observed that when appl ying thi s analysi s to the area of informant’s t ips, “the twopronged test of reliabi lity [in Jacu min ] need not be as strict ly appl ied if the inform ant’s tip i s being used to establis h reasonable suspi cion rather than probable ca use.” State v. Simpson , 968 S.W .2d 776 , 782 (T enn. 19 98).-5- In Jac umin , the court adopted the Aguilar- Spine lli test for magistrates determiningwhether probable cause exist s to iss ue a search warrant . 778 S.W.2d at 436; see Aguilar v . Texas , 3 78 U.S . 108 (19 64); Spinelliv. United States , 393 U.S. 41 0 (1969). As modified for an i nvestigatory stop, the test meas ures wheth er the tip was s ufficien tly reliable to perm it the inve stig atin g officer to determine whether “reasonable s uspicion” existed. Pulley , 863 S.W.2d at 32. The test r

equires the officer

to have fact

s thatestabli sh (1) theinform ant’s basis of knowledge of the information , and (2) cir cumstances indi cating t he veracity or credibility of th e inform ant. Jacu min , 778 S.W.2d at 432. Furtherm ore, [c]ir cumstances rel ev ant to the evaluati on include, but are not limitedto, the of

ficer’ s personal obj ective obser vations, informati on obtained from other pol ice offi cers or agenci es, info r mation obtained from citizens, and t he pattern of operati on of ce rtain off enders . A court must also consi der the rat ional inferences and deductionsthat a trained officer

may draw from thefactsand circumstances k nown to h im. State v. Yeargan , 958 S.W .2d 626 , 632 (T enn. 19 92).

W ithin this f ramework, we revi ew whet her the informant’s t ip in this case was sufficiently reliab le to support the officer’s fin ding of rea sonab le suspic ion to stop Defen dant. “Ques tions of cre dibility of the wit nesses, the wei ght and value of the evidence, and resolution of conflicts in the e vidence are m atters entrusted to the trial j udge as the tri er offact.” State v. Odom , 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996). Findings of

fact by th e trial co urt upo n a m otion to supp ress w ill be up held unless the evidenc e prepo nderate s agains t them. Id. However, the appl icatio n of la w to the se facts is a questi on of law, which an appellate court reviews de novo . State v. Yeargan , 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997) (citing Beare C o. v. Tennessee Dep’t of Revenue , 858 S.W .2d 906 , 907 (T enn. 19 93)).-6- We find thi s case to be anal ogous to the recent case of State v. Keith , 978 S.W.2d 861 (Tenn. 1998), in which t he sup remecourt affirmed, on interlocutory appe al, denial of th e defen dant’s m otion to su ppress . Id. at 867. Wh ile the facts are not directly on point t o the case at bar , we conclude t hat the result s hould be the same.

In Keith , a confi dential informant who had previously given several reliable tips to poli ce informed of ficers t hat the defend ant and another man had been storing illegal nar

cotics at a prec ise location
. Id. at 863. This confidenti al informant

also provi ded a physicaldescript ion of the m en. Id. Three da ys later, an anonym ous in formant told po lice that persons a t the same a ddress “we re involved in the possess ion and sale of ill ega l drugs.” Id. The anonymous informant

claimed that

he saw drugs insi de the resi dence withi n four days of the call and that “shortly before placi ng the call he obser ved marijuana i n a red Honda CRX vehic le which was pa rked ou tside the re sidence and sa w both suspe cts present at the res idence.” Id. Finall y, thi s informant gave a physical descripti on of both suspect s that matched t hat gi ve n by the confi dential informa nt. Id.

Officers corroborated portionsof the inform ation given by both info rmants by settingup surveil lance at t he ho me after eac h call. Id. They observed persons matching the ph ysic al descri ption of t he men leave the res idence, get into the red H onda C RX, an d drive aw ay. Id. Officer s follow ed the vehicle for a short distance before stoppi ng it and ul timately seizing t he narcotics
. Id. at 863- 64. The Keith court foundthat both p rongs of the Aguilar- Spine lli - Jacu min test-7-

were met and that re asonable suspic ion by theof ficers was suppo rted. Id. at 866-67
.
Lik ewise, in this case we conclude both (1)that the informant’s tip wa s sufficie ntly reliabl e to support a findin g of reasonabl e suspicion, and ( 2) that Officer Goo dwin corroborated enough ofthe inform ation by d irect obse rvation to create a ctual reas onable suspicio n base d upon specific an d articulab le facts.

The tip satisfied the “b as is of knowl edge” prong of t he Aguilar- Spine lli Jacu min test because t he inform ant had personal ly ordered specifi c types and quantiti es of drugs from D efe ndan t, sche duled to be d elivere d at a c ertain locati on on a certai n date at a cer tain ti me. The tip sati sfied th e “veraci ty or credibility” prong because the of ficer testifi ed he had receive d reliabl e and accura te tips f rom this conf identialinformant appr oximately

twen ty tim es in the past.

With respec t to indepe ndent corrobo ration o f the tip, O fficer G oodw in testif ied at the hearing on the motion to su ppress that he observe d a ma n matching the description given by t he inf orma nt, accomp anied by one passeng er, drivi ng a vehiclematching t he descripti on, at the p recise l ocation gi ven, at t he approxim ate time g iven. Fu rtherm ore, the Perfe ct Pig restaurant was closed for business at that

time, and t he suspect drove slowly t hrough the parki ng lotand back onto the road way for no app are nt reason. As a matter of law, Officer Goo dwin possessed suffic ientreasonab le suspicion to co nduct an inves tigatory stop of D efenda nt.-8- Because the offi cer had reasonabl e suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Defen dant, we affirm th e trialcourt’s de nial of De fendan t’s motion to suppress. The j udgment of the t rial cour t is af firmed.

____________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES , JUD GE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE