# FILED September 3, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN T HE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPE ALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVI LLE MARCH SESSION, 1997
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9605-CC-00228 ) Appell ee, ) ) RUTHERFO RD COUN TY ) V. ) HO N. J AM ES K. C LAY TO N, J R., ) JUDGE JOHN HOWARD POPE, ) ) Ap pella nt. ) (DU I)
FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : TERRY A . F ANN JOHN KNOX WALKUP W ALDRON AND FANN Attor ney General & Reporter 202 W est Mai n Street Murfreesboro, TN 37130 LI SAA. NA YLOR Assist ant Attor ney General 425 Fifth Avenue North 2nd Floor , Cordel l Hul l Bui ldi ng Nashvil le, TN 37243 WILLIA M W HITESELL Dist ri ct Attor ney General DAL E ROBERTSON Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney Gener al JOHN PRICE Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney Gener al 303 Rutherford CountyJudic ial Bldg. Murfreesboro, TN 37130 OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFI RMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUD GE-2- 

# OPINION

The Defend ant, John Howa rd Pope, was convicted of DUI, 1st Offense, followin g a b enc h trial in th e C ircuit C ourt o f R ut herfo rd Coun ty . He ap pe als as ofri ghtpursua nttoRul e 3 o f t he Te nne sse e R ules of Ap pella te Procedure. In ad dition to challeng ing the su fficiency of the evide nce to s upp ort the convi cti on, Defend ant argues thatthe t ri al court er red by denyi ng his Mot ion to Su ppre ss a ll eviden ce o btain ed a s a re sult of th e inve stiga tory sto p of hi m immedi ate ly pr eceding hi s arr est f or DUI. W e aff ir m the judgmentof t he tr ial cou rt.
I. SUPPRES SI ON OF EVI DENCE

On the ni ght ofDecember 26, 199 4, O ffic er Chri s Thornton of t he Murfree sboro Poli ce Departmentwas on du ty an d “s itting sta tion ary” in her pat rol carat a car

wash. While t here, an un ident if ied y oung ladyapproached and stat ed thatshe had j ust been s exual lyproposi ti oned bya m an a t th e K-M art parki ng lot in M urfree sbo ro. Specif ical ly , t he ladytol d Offi cer Thornt on thatthe man had offered her“$100. 00 for 30 minutes .” The ladygave Off icer Thornton a descri pti on of t he man and the van thathe was dri vi ng, i ncludi ng the col or and lic ense plat e number. She al so rel ated t o Offi cer Thornt on thatshe bec am e scared whe n the m an attem pted to follow her to he r vehi cle. The K-M art store was not wi thi n Offi cerTh orn ton ’s zone for patrol, and she ra dioed the dispa tcher, rel ayed the inform ation given to her, and requ ested a uni t t o inv esti gate. The rad io transmissi on by Off icer Thornton c ould be heard byother offi cers. No-3-

patrol car wa s av aila ble for th e zo ne in w hic h the K -Mart is l ocated, and the dispat cher r equested Offi cer Thornt on to proceed to the sce ne. In her h aste to leav e, Offi cer Thornt on did notobtai n any i denti fyi ng inf ormati on of t he woman who ma de th e rep ort, and her i denti ty remained unknown through the t ime of t he hea ring o f the m otion to su ppre ss a nd th e trial.

Offi cer Ch arle s G oo dlo e o f the Mu rfree sb oro Po lic e Department wa s on duty at the time , driving a police m otorcycle. H e wa s located in front of K-M art when he he ard Off ice r T ho rnto n’s rad io transmissi on and went i nto t he parki ng lotand observ ed the desc ri bed van par ked in aparki ng place. Offi cer Goodloe stopped his moto rcyc le behi nd the v an and tur ne d on hisblue l ight s “f or t he purpose of goi ng up there and tal king t o him [Def endan t].” Offi cer Goodloe walked up to the dr iv er’ s side window ofthe v an, whic h wa s do wn , and spo ke to De fend ant. De fend ant d id no t spe ak to the off icer , butstarted t he van and began to dri ve off. Goodloe t hen ret urned t o his mot orcyc le, wit h the bl ue li ghts st il l on, and fol lowed t he van i n an att empt to make t he Defendantstop. The Defendant did no t sto p u ntil afte r O ffic er Thornt on arr iv ed at t he parki ng lotand drov e her veh icle in fro nt of D efen dan t’s van .

W hen Offi cerTh orn ton we nt u p to the van she cou ld smell the odor ofan in toxica nt on t he Defendant . Bot h off icers test if ied t hat t hey never observe d the Def endant dr iv ing i n an errat ic manner. He drove abouthalfway acro ss th e pa rking lot befo re co m ing to a sto p afte r leavin g O fficer G ood loe.

Bo th officers also con firme d tha t they h ad n o evid enc e or fa cts whatsoev erto suspect Defendant was under the i nfluence ofan y into xica nts un til-4-

aft erhe wasst op pe d s ub se qu en t t o d ri vi ng awa y f ro m Of fi ce Goodl oe. B oth officers co nf i r me d t ha t the y we re re lying sole ly on the un ide ntifie d w om an ’s inform ation prov ided to O fficer T horn ton in ma king the s top.

Defendantwas placed under ar restforDUI as a resul t ofthe observa ti ons by t he off icers of Def en d ant’ s int oxi cati on. Hi s vehi cle was searched inci dent to t he arrest and t he police foun d a h alf-em pty bott le ofvodka, and an opened bottle o f oran ge ju ice. The Defendant agreed to submi t t o a blood alcohol testand was tak en to t he hospital t o giv e a sampl e of hi s blood. The sam ple w as s ent to the T BI C rime Lab orato ry an d the resu lt was 0.17 .

The Defendanttest if ied and deni ed speaki ng to anyfemale atthe parki ng loton the nig ht in qu es tion , de nie d h avin g $ 10 0.0 0 in his pos sessi on, and denied making any s exual advance orsex ual pr opos it io n t o anyfe male on t he KMart parki ng loton the ni ght ofhis ar rest . I n addit ion, the Def endant t esti fi ed that he did notremember Offi cer Goodloe coming up to hi s vehi cle’ s window, and that he d id stop in the p arkin g lot afte r he s aw Office r Th ornto n’s p atrol c ar.

The properstandard of revi ew forsuppressi on iss ues was rec en tly set f ort h by oursupreme courtin State v. Odom , 928 S .W .2d 18 (Ten n. 199 6): The party pre vailin g in the t rial court i s entit led to t he strongest legitim ate vi ew of t he evi dence adduced atthe suppression heari ng as well as all reason ab le and l egit imate i nfer ences thatmay be drawn from tha t evi den ce. So l ong as the great er wei ght ofthe evidence sup port s the t ri al court’ s fi ndings, those f indi ngs shal l be upheld. In ot her wor ds, a t ri al court’ s fi ndings of factin a suppressi on h e aring wil l be upheld unless t he evidence prep ond erate s oth erw ise.-5-

Odom , 923 S. W .2d at23.

The De fend ant s tates in his b rief tha t the iss ue o n the Mo tion to Suppress is “whether t here was a suff ici ent f actual basisforthe i nvest igat ory s top which even tually led to [De fend ant] a rrest.” In sup port o f his arg um ent, Defendantrel ies upon State v. Bi nion , 900 S. W .2d 702 ( Tenn. Crim . App. 1 994 ), Sta te v. Coleman , 791 S.W .2d 5 04 (T enn . Crim . App . 198 9), Sta te v. L awson , 929 S. W.2d 40 6 ( Ten n. Cr i m. App. 1996) , and State v. J ames ChesterCob b, Sr. , No. 01C01-9011-CC-00308, Hickman County (Tenn. Crim. App. , Nashvi ll e, f il ed May 7, 19 91). W e feel tha t the fa cts of t he case sub judice are distin gu ish ab le from this co urt’s d ecis ions in the c ase s relied upo n by D efen dan t.

In Bini on , t he iss ue present ed for revi ew was whether

the act ofthe Defendantlaw fully turn i ng hi s v eh i cl e a r ou nd ap prox i mat el y 1, 00 0 f ee t f r om a police roadbl ock was suffi cientto gi ve a st ate t roop e r reas ona ble s usp icion to sto p the veh ic le. Th is cou rt held that it did not. Coleman inv olv ed a sit uati on whe re the pol ice offi cer r eceiv ed a “t ip”from an infor mant whom he did notknow pri orto receiv ing t he inf ormati on. In t he case sub judice , whil e the i denti ty o f t he woman who reported t he inf ormati on to Off icer Thornton remains unk nown, t he woman was a vi cti m citi zen informant whi ch sa tisfie d the “ basis of knowl edge” testlacki ng in Coleman . See Sta te v. Ja cu m in , 778 S. W .2d 430 (T enn . 1989 ). In addit ion, inf ormati on regarding t he descri pti on of D efen dan t’s van , alon g with the license p late num ber an d its location w as im me diately veri fi able byOffi cer Goodloe. Likewi se, i n Cobb , an u npu blishe d op inion of th is court , t here was inv olv ed an apparent lyanonymous informant. There was no thin g in the reco rd to indi cate t he “basi s of kno wledge”of t he inf ormant. In Lawson , t he stop was-6-

based solel y upon t he factthatthe Def endant’ s vehi cle was locat ed i n a “hi ghcrim e are a.”
W hile not reli ed upon by t he Stat e in i ts br ief , t he case of State v. Pu lly , 86 3 S .W .2d 29 (T en n. 1 99 3), c on trols in th is issue raise d by D efen dan t.

Under Pu lly , as soo n as Off icer Goodloe t urned on t he blue li ghts of his motorcy cle, Defendantwas “seize d” with in the me anin g of Te rry v. O hio , 392 U.S.1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L .Ed .2d 8 89 (1 968 ). Pu lly , 863 S .W .2d at 30 . How ever, the nextissue to det ermine i s whether the st op and seizu re co m plied with b oth state and fe deral co nstitutional pro visions wh ich proh ibit “unre as on ab le se arches and seizure s.” Pu lly , 863 S. W .2d at30. According to our supreme court i n Pu lly : In general , al though th e F ou rth A m en dm en t req uire s “p rob ab le cause ” b efor e an arr est i s deemed to be r easonable, the reasonableness of se izu res less intru sive tha n a full-s ca le arrestis judged by wei ghing t he gravi ty o f t he publi c concern, the deg ree to which the seizu re a dvances t hat concer n, and t he sever ity ofthe intrusion into ind ividual privacy. Pu lly , 863 S. W .2d at30.

W hen Offi cer Goodloe made his “s top” of Defe ndant, the Def endant was par ked in amar ked parki ng place in a publ ic par king l ot. Inf ormati on recei ved by Off icer

Goodloe from Offic erThornton’ s radi o transmissi on was that the victim of a rep orte d cr im e h ad ge ne rally descri bed the all eged perpet rat or, the pe rpe trato r’s vehicl e, incl uding it s li cense tag number and c olor , and it s loca ti on. Th e de scrip tive inform ation was imm edia tely verified by O fficer G ood loe.-7- In thi s case, the publ ic i nter est ser ved by t he “st op” ofD efendant was the inv estig ati on and preve nti on of t he cri me of sol ici ti ng prost it uti on in a pu blic parki ng lotof a department st ore. The stop was made ofan indi vi dual locat ed in hi s vehi cle i n a marked parki ng place of t he parki ng lot . The int rusi on was rel ati vel y minorconsi deri ng all of t he fact s and circ um sta nc es . Th e b as is of knowledge of the “inform ant” w as fro m the s tand poin t of a victim eye- witne ss to an all eged cri me recentl y committ ed and d escr ipt iv e informati on giv en by t he person provi ding the i nfor mation was i mm ediat elyveri fi ed. We conclude t hat the police offic ers ha d “s pe cific a nd artic ula ble facts”to j usti fy t he inv esti gatory st op in this c ase . Th is issu e is w ithou t me rit.

II . SUFFI CIE NCY OF THE EVI DENCE
The Defendant ’s sec ond iss ue is whet her t he tr ial court erre d in convi cti ng the Def endant ofdriv ing under the i nfluence, f irstoff ense, base d upon the evi dence as pres ented attr ial . The Defendantfi rstargues t hat the bl ood test sh ou ld not hav e been admitt ed at t ri al as f rui t ofthe poi sonous tree stemming fro m the illega l invest igat ory s top. W e have al ready hel d thatthe st op was not improper . Therefore, the bl ood testwas proper lyadmitt ed.

W hen an acc us ed cha ll enges t he suff ici ency ofthe conv ict ing evi dence, the st andard i s whether , afterrevi ewing the evi dence in the l ight most favo rab le to the pro secu tion, any rat ional tr ierof f act coul d have f ound the essenti al ele m en ts o f the crim e b eyo nd a re as on ab le dou bt. Ja cks on v. Vir gin ia , 443 U.S . 307 , 319 (197 9). Qu estio ns c onc ernin g the cred ibilityof the wi tnesses, the weightand val ue to be gi ven t he evi dence, as well as all fact ual i ssues rai sed-8-

by the ev idence, are r esolv ed by t he tr ieroffact, not th is cou rt. State v. Pappas , 754 S.W . 2d 6 20, 6 23 (T enn . Crim . App .), perm . to appeal denied , id . ( Tenn. 198 7). No r m ay th is co urt re we ig h or r eev alua te the evide nce . State v. Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d 8 32, 8 35 (T enn . 197 8).

On ap pe al, the S tate is e ntitled to the s trong est leg itima te vi ew of t he evidence and all infere nce s the refrom . Cabbage , 571 S.W .2d at 835. Because a verdi ct ofguil t r emoves the presum ptio n o f in nocence and r eplaces itwit h a presumpti on of g uilt, th e a ccu se d h as the bu rde n in thi s courtof i ll ustrati ng why the e vidence is i nsu fficient to sup port th e ver dict re turne d by th e trier o f fact. Sta te v. T ug gle , 639 S.W .2d 9 13, 9 14 (T enn . 198 2); State v. Grace , 493 S. W .2d 474 , 476 (T enn . 1973 ).

Offi cerTh orn ton first te stifie d to the eve nts le ading up to t he encounter

wit h the Def endant i n the K-Martparki ng lot . Once t he Defendantwas s to pped, Officer T hornto n saw that the D efend ant wa s red-fac ed an d sleep yeyed. W hen the Def endantgot outof t he van he st umbled, and t he Offi cerhad to hold hi s arm. She sm elle d the odor of an i ntoxi cant. The Defendant’ s eyes were red and hi s speech was sl urred. In the Def endant’ s van she found a pa rtially empty bottl e of Smirnoff Vodka and a c old, small orange j uice bottl e. The offic er d id n ot a sk th e D efe nd an t to p erfo rm an y field sob riety tests because she was worri ed thathe would fall down in t he parki ng lotand hurthimsel f. She arres ted him an d a ske d h im to su bm it to a B l oo d A l co ho l Tes t . Th e rep ort ca me bac k tha t the D efen dan t’s bloo d alc oho l level wa s 0.1 7 pe rcen t.-9- Offi cerGoodloe testified to eve nts up t o t he p oi ntofth e ar re st . He then stat ed thatwhen he began speaki ng wit h the Def endant he co uld smel l t he odorof an alco holic b eve rage com ing fro m the D efen dan t. The Defendant was unsteadyon his fe et a nd un ab le to st and wit hout wo bb ling . He con firm ed no field sob riety test s were gi ven because of co nce rns th at D efen dan t mig ht hu rt him self. Based on the appearance, sm ell, and spe ech of the De fend ant, Offi cer Goodloe belie ved him to be und er the influen ce o f an into xican t.

Tennes see Co de An no tate d se ctio n 55-10-40 1 reads, “[i]t is unla wfu l forany person . . . t o dri ve or to be in ph ysi cal co ntrol ofan y au tom ob ile . . . w hile on the premises ofany shoppi ng center . . . whi le under

the i nfl uence of any int oxi cant. . . .”From the t esti mony and exhi bit s at t he bench tr ial , t he Defendant was clea rly dri vi ng and in physi cal co ntrol ofthe v an, cl earl y on the premises of a shopping center

and c lear lyund er t he inf luence of alcohol . There i s no questi on that a reasonabl e tr ieroffactcould f ind t he Defendantguil ty o f dr iv ing under t he inf luence.

Th is issue is wi thoutmerit . We affi rm the judg m ent o f the trial c ourt.

____________________________________ THO MAS T. W OOD ALL, Judge
CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge-10-

___________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, Judge