### IN THE CO URT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF T ENN ESSEE
AT JACKSON

Ju ly 10, 2 01 2 S es si on

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . CHARLES W . WHI TE, SR.

D i r e c t A p p e a l f

r o m t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t f o r H e n d e r s o n C o u n t y
N o

. 1 1 0 0 8

- 1 R o y B

. M o r g a n , J r

. , J u d g e

N o

. W 2 0 1 1

- 0 2 3 0 1

- C C A

- R 3

- C D

- F i l e d A u g u s t 3 1
, 2 0 1 2

T h e d ef en d an t, C h arles W. Wh ite, S r., w as co n v icted o f d riv in g u n d er th e in f lu en ce (“D U I”)
b y a H en d erso n C o u n ty C ircu it C o u rt j u ry an d sen ten ced to elev en m o n th s an d tw en ty -n in e d ay s, w ith all b u t f

o rty -eig h t h o u rs su sp en d ed

. H is d riv er’s licen se w as also su sp en d ed f o r

o n e y ear f o r v io latio n o f th e im

p lied co n sen t law

. O n ap p eal, h e ch allen g es th e trial co u rt’s
d en ial o f h is m o tio n to su p p ress th e sto p o f h is v eh icle. A f ter rev iew

, w e af

f irm th e j u d g m en t o f

th e trial co u rt.

T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 3 A p p e a l a s o f R i g h t ; J u d g m e n t o f t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t A f f i r m e d

A LA N E

. G LE N N
, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t

, i n w h i c h J O H N E V E R E T T W ILL IA M S

a n d C A M ILL E R

. M C M U LLE N
, J J

. , j o i n e d

.

R i c k y L

. W o o d

, P a r s o n s , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t

, C h a r l e s W

. W h i t e , S r

.

R o b e r t E

. C o o p e r , J r

. , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d R e p o r t e r ; S o p h i a S

. L e e , S e n i o r C o u n s e l ; J a m e s G

. ( J e r r y ) W o o d a l l

, D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; a n d A n g e l a R

. S c o t t

, A s s i s t a n t D i s t r i c t

A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

, f

o r t h e a p p e l l e e , S t a t e o f T e n n e s s e e

.

O P I N I O N

F A C T S

T h e d ef en d an t w a s i n d i c t ed f

o r D U I an d sp eed in g af

ter h e w as p u lled o v er f o r

sp eed in g b y a L ex in g to n P o lice D ep artm en t o f f icer. H e f iled a m o tio n to su p p ress th e sto p

o f h is v eh icle, arg u in g th at th e o f f icer d id n o t h av e reaso n ab le su sp icio n o r p ro b ab le cau se
to p u ll h im

o v er.A t th e su p p ressio n h earin g , O f f icer B rad Wilso n o f th e L ex in g to n P o lice D ep artm en t

t e s t i f ied th at, o n Ju ly 5

, 2 0 1 0

, th e d ep artm en t receiv ed a call f ro m a citizen re p o r t i n g a

v eh icle th at w as trav elin g in a reck less m an n er. T h e caller w as f o llo w in g th e reck less

v eh icle, later id en tif

ied as b ein g d riv en b y th e d ef en d an t, an d g iv in g co n tin u o u s u p d ates to th e d isp atch er, in clu d in g th e licen se p late n u m b er. O f f icer Wilso n lo cated th e caller’s

v eh icle an d h a d t h e d isp atch er ad v ise th e caller to p u ll to th e sid e o f th e ro ad so h e co u ld
f o llo w th e d ef

en d an t’s v eh icle.

O f f icer Wilso n o b serv ed th e d ef en d an t’s v eh icle s to p at a sto p sig n an d th en accelerate to a sp eed o f at least f o rty -tw o m iles p er h o u r. H e ex p lain ed th at h e d eterm in ed
th e sp eed o f th e d ef

en d an t’s v e h i c l e b ecau se h e w as d riv in g f o rty -tw o m iles p er h o u r an d
th e d ef en d an t w as d riv in g f

aster th an h e w as d riv in g

. H e activ ated h is b lu e lig h ts b ecau se th e sp eed lim it w as th irty m iles p er h o u r. T h e d e f e n d a n t s t o p p ed h is v eh icle, an d O f f icer
Wilso n ad v ised h im

th at h e w as sto p p ed f

o r sp eed in g

.

A sk ed ab o u t th e u se o f p acin g as a m eth o d f o r d eterm in in g a v eh icle’s sp eed in a case lik e th e p resen t o n e, O f

f icer Wilso n ex p lain ed th at “[ w ] h en y o u ’re p acin g a v eh icle o n a

co n tin u o u s p l a n e , 3 0 0 f

eet is an ad v ised p o licy th at w e u se. B u t if so m eo n e is o b v io u sly
acceleratin g o v er th e sp eed lim it,

. . . w e g o ah ead an d s t o p t h e m a s s o o n as th e th reat is
th ere.” O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , O f f icer Wilso n recalled th at th e ro ad h e w as f o llo w in g th e d ef en d an t o n w as a p av ed ro ad w ay o n a d o w n h ill in clin e an d cu rv e to th e rig h t. H e said th at
h e f o llo w ed th e d ef

en d an t f o r ap p ro x im ately 2 0 0 f

eet, an d alth o u g h h e co u ld n o t recall h o w lo n g h e f o llo w ed th e d ef

en d an t, h e ag reed th at h e w o u ld n o t b e su rp rised if th e elap sed tim e

w as tw en ty -eig h t seco n d s.

A sk ed if h e w as ab le to p ace th e d ef en d an t at f

o rty -tw o m iles p er h o u r af ter f o llo w in g h im f o r tw en ty -eig h t seco n d s o v er a f ew h u n d red f

eet, O f f icer Wilso n resp o n d ed

, “I d id n o t

p ace h im

. H e w as g o in g o v er 3 0 m iles p er h o u r an d at least 4 2 m iles p er h o u r, b ecau se I w as

g o in g th at f

ast an d h e w as g o in g aw ay f ro m m e.” O f

f icer Wilso n ad m itted th at h e d id n o t activ ate h is rad ar g u n to d eterm in e th e d ef en d an t’s sp eed

. H o w ev er, h e reco rd ed th e ev en ts lead in g u p to an d in clu d in g th e sto p f ro m th e cam era in h is p atro l car.

C lin t S an d ers, a reg istered lan d su rv ey o r, testif ied t h at h e w atch ed th e v id eo o f
O f f icer Wilso n f

o llo w in g th e d ef

en d an t an d p erso n ally w en t o u t an d m easu red th e d istan ce

o n th e p articu lar stretch o f h ig h w ay in q u estio n an d p rep ared a p lat sh o w in g th e “h o rizo n tal

an d slo p e d istan ce” as w ell as “th e elev atio n an d th e rise an d f all
-- slo p e o f th e ro ad .” H e also lo cated p o w er p o les alo n g th e stretch o f h ig h w ay th at w ere v isib le in th e v id eo an d

m easu red th e d istan ce b etw een th e p o les. S an d ers ex p la i n ed th at th ere is a m ath em atical
f o rm u la to d eterm in e th e sp eed o f a v eh icle b ased o n d istan ce an d tim e. U sin g th e f o rm u la,
h e calcu lated th e d ef

en d an t’s av erag e rate o f trav el d u rin g th ree d if f eren t seg m en ts alo n g th e

-2-ro ad b y d o cu m en tin g w h en th e d ef en d an t’s v eh icle p assed v a r i o u s p o w er p o les, an d h e d eterm in ed th at th e d ef

en d an t’s v eh icle co u ld n o t h av e ex ceed ed th irty m iles p er h o u r. O n

cro ss-ex am in atio n , S an d ers ack n o w led g ed th at he c oul d not de term in e th e d ef en d an t’s ex act

sp eed d u rin g an y

o f th o se seg m en ts, o n ly

th e av erag e rate o f

trav el f o r each seg m en t.

T h e trial co u rt d en ied th e d ef en d an t’s m o tio n to su p p ress, an d h e w as su b seq u en tly

co n v icted af

ter a trial o f D U I b u t w a s f o u n d n o t g u ilty o f sp eed in g

. B o th O f f icer Wilso n

an d C lin t S an d ers testif

ied at th e trial co n sisten tly to th eir testim o n y at th e su p p ressio n h earin g

.

A N A L Y S IS

T h e d ef en d an t arg u es th at th e w eig h t o f th e ev id en ce at th e su p p ressio n h e arin g

p rep o n d erates ag ain st th e trial co u rt’s f in d in g th at h e w as sp eed in g to j u stif y th e sto p o f h is

v eh icle b y O f

f icer Wilso n an d h is su b seq u en t co n v ictio n f o r D U I an d lo s s o f d r iv er’s
licen se.

Wh en th is co u rt rev iew s a trial co u rt’s ru lin g o n a m o tio n to su p p ress ev id en ce, “[ q ] u estio n s o f cred ib ility o f th e w itn e s s e s , t h e w eig h t an d v alu e o f th e ev id en ce, an d

reso lu tio n o f co n f

licts in th e ev id en ce are m atters en tru sted to th e trial j u d g e as th e trier o f
f act.” S tate v

. O d o m , 9 2 8 S .W.2 d 1 8

, 2 3 (T en n

. 1 9 9 6 ). T h e p arty p rev ailin g at th e

su p p ressio n h earin g is af f o rd ed th e “ stro n g est leg itim ate v iew o f th e ev id en ce an d all

reaso n ab le an d leg itim ate in f eren ces th at m ay b e d raw n f ro m th at ev id en ce.” S tate v

. K eith

, 9 7 8 S .W.2 d 8 6 1 , 8 6 4 (T en n . 1 9 9 8 ). T h e f in d in g s o f a trial co u rt in a su p p ressio n h earin g

are u p h eld u n less th e ev id en ce p rep o n d erates ag ain st th o se f in d in g s. S ee id

. H o w ev er, th e

ap p licatio n o f t h e l a w t o th e f acts f o u n d b y th e trial co u rt is a q u estio n o f law an d is

rev iew ed d

e n o vo . S ee S tate v

. Y earg an , 9 5 8 S .W.2 d 6 2 6 , 6 2 9 (T en n . 1 9 9 7 ). B o th p ro o f

p resen ted at th e su p p ressio n h earin g an d p r o o f p resen ted at trial m ay b e co n sid ered b y an

ap p ellate co u rt in d ecid in g th e p ro p riety o f th e trial co u rt’s ru lin g o n a m o tio n to su p p ress. S tate v

. H en n in g , 9 7 5 S .W.2 d 2 9 0

, 2 9 9 (T en n

. 1 9 9 8 ); S tate v

. P erry , 1 3 S .W.3 d 7 2 4

, 7 3 7 (T en n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ).

B o th th e F o u rth A m en d m en t to th e U n ited S tates C o n stitu tio n an d A rticle I, sectio n 7 o f th e T en n essee C o n stitu tio n p ro tect in d iv id u als ag ain st u n reaso n ab le search es an d
seizu res. S ee U .S

. C o n st. am en d

. IV ; T en n

. C o n st. art. I, § 7

. “ T h e s e c o n stitu tio n al

p ro v isio n s are d esig n ed to ‘saf eg u ard th e p riv acy an d secu rity o f in d iv id u als ag ain st arb itrary in v asio n s o f

g o v ern m en t o f

f icials.’” K eith

, 9 7 8 S .W.2 d at 8 6 5 (q u o tin g C am ara

v

. M u n icip al C o u rt, 3 8 7 U .S

. 5 2 3

, 5 2 8 (1 9 6 7 )). A search o r seizu re co n d u cted w ith o u t a

w arran t is p resu m ed u n reaso n ab le, an d ev id en ce o b tain ed as a r esu lt w ill b e su p p ressed
“u n less th e p ro secu tio n d em o n strates b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f th e ev id en ce th at th e search o r

-3-seizu re w as co n d u cted p u rsu an t to an ex cep tio n to th e w arran t req u irem en t.” Id

. at 8 6 5

(citatio n s o m itted ).

O n e o f th o se ex cep tio n s is w h en an o f f icer m ak es an in v estig ato ry sto p b ased o n

reaso n ab le su sp icio n , su p p o rted b y sp ecif ic an d articu lab le f

acts, th at a crim in al o f

f en se h as b een o r is ab o u t to b e co m m itted

. T erry v

. O h io

, 3 9 2 U .S

. 1

, 2 1 (1 9 6 8 ); S tate v

. B in ette, 3 3
S .W.3 d 2 1 5

, 2 1 9 (T en n

. 2 0 0 0 ). R easo n ab le su sp icio n is an o b j ectiv e stan d ard an d m

u st b e d eterm in ed f

ro m th e to tality o f th e cir cu m stan ces. U n ited S tates v

. C o rtez, 4 4 9 U .S

. 4 1 1

, 4 1 7 -1 8 (1 9 8 1 ); see O rn elas v

. U n i t e d S t a tes, 5 1 7 U .S

. 6 9 0

, 6 9 6 (1 9 9 6 ). If an o f f icer

o b serv es a v io latio n o f a t r a f f i c l aw , th e o f

f icer h as an o b

j ectiv e b asis f

o r sto p p in g th e

v eh icle. S ee, e.g ., S tate v

. V in ey ard

, 9 5 8 S .W.2 d 7 3 0

, 7 3 4 (T en n

. 1 9 9 7 ); S tate v

. L ev itt, 7 3
S .W.3 d 1 5 9 , 1 7 3 (T en n . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ).

In d en y in g th e d ef

en d an t’s m o tio n to su p p ress, th e trial co u rt f o u n d as f o llo w s:

N o w , th e issu e is w h eth er

. . . th is city p o lice o f f icer o b serv ed a traf

f ic

o f f en se an d h ad a reaso n ab le su sp icio n to in itiate th e sto p

. T h is is n o t a trial

o n th e m erits o f th e case. T h e q u estio n is n o t w h eth er a T en n essee co u rt

w o u ld h a v e f

o u n d th is d ef

en d an t g u ilty o f a traf

f ic in f ractio n ; th at’s n o t th e

q u estio n to d ay

. T h e q u estio n is w h eth er th e o f f icer h ad th at p ro b ab le cau se

o r a reaso n ab le su sp icio n th at a v io latio n h ad o ccu rred

.

D ef en se co u n sel p o in ts o u t, y o u k n o w , th e case y o u ref erred to

, it d eals

w ith th e cred ib ility

o f w itn esses. T h ere’s b een n o ch allen g in g o f cred ib ility

o r b eliev ab ility to d ay o f an y o f th e w itn esses th at h av e testif ied

, ex p ert o r th e

o f f icer. A n d th at is so m eth in g th at is p o in ted o u t b y d ef en se co u n sel h im self

w h en [ h ] e m ad e h is arg u m en t. T h i s e x p ert h as testif ied an d h as g iv en b asically an av erag e sp eed

. H is o p in io n as to an av erag e sp eed

. T h e o f f icer
testif ied th e sto p [ w as] b ased o n 4 2 m iles an h o u r, at least.

N o w , y o u ’v e g o t to rem em b er th e sim

p le ap p ro ach th at I lo o k to u sin g

co m m o n sen se an d ev ery d ay ex p erien ce in lif e. H e s a y s I ’ m b eh in d th e

v e h i c l e

. I k n o w h e w as at least d o in g 4 2

. . . m iles an h o u r b ecau se h e w a s still p u llin g aw ay f

ro m m e. F o r ex am

p le, if I w ere b eh in d d ef

en se co u n sel o r th e S tate o n th e in terstat e a n d I ’ m d o i n g 7 5

, an d y o u zip b y m e, I’d say th at

v eh icle is d o in g mo r e t h a n 7 5

, w h ich I’m alread y f iv e m iles o v er th e sp eed
lim it. I d o n ’t h av e to d o an y p acin g ; I j u st k n o w y o u ’re p u llin g aw ay f ro m m e b ased u p o n th e sp eed

.

S o th at’s a v ery sim

p le ap p ro ach th e o f

f icer to o k

. H e d id n ’t try to

-4-d escrib e it an y o th er w ay

. A n d it w asn ’t an ex cessiv e sp eed in su ch a m an n er.

It w asn ’t 6 0

, 7 0 o r 8 0 [ i] n a 3 0 m ile an h o u r zo n e. It w as j u st -- h is o p in io n

w as, b ase d o n h im still p u llin g aw ay , an d h e w as d o in g 4 2

, h e w as d o in g at least th at o r m o re.

We’re lo o k in g at a v id eo v ersu s o n -site o p in io n

. We’re lo o k in g at o v er th ree f o o tb all f ield s in len g th as f

ar as th e tim e b ased o n th e ex p ert’s o p in io n

o f 1 ,0 1 9 to 1 ,0 5 0 f

eet. We’re loo k in g at a f

o rm u la b ased u p o n o r calcu lated

p er th e v id eo

. A n d th e ex p ert o p in io n is f o r th e tri e r o f f

act to d eterm in e. T h ey d o n ’t h av e to accep t an ex p ert’s o p in io n

. T h at w as b ased o n sk ills,

ex p erien ce, k n o w led g e, train in g , th e f acts g iv en

. T h at’s u p to th e trier o f f act.

S o b ased u p o n w h at I’v e h eard to d ay , I f in d th at th ere is p ro b ab le cau se

an d /o r a reaso n ab le su sp icio n to m ak e b ased u p o n th e 4 2 m ile an h o u r sp eed

. S o m y ru lin g is to d en y

th e m o tio n to su p p ress.

U p o n rev iew

, w e can n o t co n clu d e t h at th e ev id en ce p rep o n d erates ag ain st th e trial

co u rt’s f in d in g s. We in itially n o te th at C lin t S an d ers w as n e v e r ten d ered an d accep ted as

an ex p ert in lan d su rv ey in g

. E v en if h e w ere so accep ted

, w e q u estio n w h eth er h is testim o n y

w as o u tsid e th e sco p e o f su ch ex p ertise g iv en h e testif ied th at a lan d su rv ey o r’s j o b co n sisted

o f m easu rin g “[ d ] istan ces an d an g les,” b u t th e essen ce o f h is testim o n y co n cern ed

m ath em atical calcu latio n s h e m ad e.

In an y ev en t, S an d ers testif ied as to h is o p in io n o f th e d ef en d an t’s av erag e sp eed o v er th e p articu lar stretch o f h ig h w ay b y attem p tin g to o b serv e f

ro m t h e v i d e o reco rd in g f ro m O f f icer Wilso n ’s car th e m o m en t th e d ef en d an t’s v eh icle p assed certain p o w er p o les an d th e tim e it to o k f

o r th e d ef en d an t’s v eh icle to d o so

. C o n trary to th e av erag e sp eed d eterm in ed
b y S an d ers, O f

f icer Wilso n testif

ied th at th e d ef

en d an t w as d riv in g , at so m e p o in t, at least
f o rty -tw o m iles p er h o u r b ased o n th e o f f icer’s f o llo w in g b eh in d th e d ef

en d an t at th at sp eed

an d th at th e d ef

en d an t “w as g o in g f

aster th an [ h im ] .” O u r s u p r e me co u rt h as n o ted th at “‘[ e] x p ert o p in io n s are n o t o rd in arily co n clu siv e in th e sen se th at th ey m u st b e accep ted as
tru e o n th e su b

j ect o f th eir testim o n y , b u t are g en erally reg ard ed as p u rely ad v iso ry in
ch aracter[ .] ’” R ich v . T en n . B d . o f M ed . E x am ’rs, 3 5 0 S .W.3 d 9 1 9

, 9 2 7 -2 8 (T en n

. 2 0 1 1 ) (q u o tin g C o ck e C n ty

. B d

. o f H ig h w ay C o m m ’rs v

. N ew p o rt U til. B d

., 6 9 0 S .W.2 d 2 3 1

, 2 3 5 (T en n

. 1 9 8 5 ) (q u o tin g A m

. Ju r. 2 d E x p ert an d O p in io n E v id en ce § 1 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ))). T h e co u rt

co n t i n u ed th at “‘th e [ triers o f f act] m ay p lace w h atev er w eig h t th ey ch o o se u p o n su ch
testim o n y an d m ay rej e c t i t

, i f t h e y f in d th at it is in co n sisten t w ith th e f acts in th e case o r

o th erw ise u n reaso n ab le.’” Id

. T h e trial co u rt o b v io u sly f o u n d th at O f

f icer Wilso n ’s f

irsth an d o b serv atio n o f th e d ef en d an t’s d riv in g w as m o re accu rate th an S an d ers’ calcu latio n s

m ad e f ro m a v id eo reco rd in g tak en f ro m a p ersp ectiv e in w h ich it w o u ld b e im p o ssib le to

-5-d eterm in e th e p recise m o m en t in w h ich th e d ef en d an t’s v eh i c l e p assed th e d esig n ated

m ark ers in o rd er to m ak e su ch calcu latio n s. T h e ev id en ce d o es n o t p rep o n d erate ag ain st th e trial co u rt’s f

in d in g

.

C O N C L U S IO N

B a s ed o n th e f

o reg o in g au th o rities an d reaso n in g , w e af f irm th e d en ia l o f t h e d ef en d an t’s m o tio n to su p p ress.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A L A N E

. G L E N N

, J U D G E

-6-