### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE N ove m be r 27, 200 7 S es sio n STATE OF TENNESS EE V. FRANK BENNI E J ACKSON, J R.

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Ham ilton Coun ty No. 260814 Rebec ca Ster n, Jud ge

No. E2006-02733-CC A-R3- CD - F iled March 25, 2008

A Hamilton County

g rand jury

indicted the def

endant, Fra

nk Be nnie J ackson, J r., for possession of coca ine for r esa l e, drivingwithout a license, a nd failure to stop at a traf fic sig nal. The de fenda

nt filed a motion to suppress alleg ing that the sear ch of his vehic l e i n ci d ent to a custodial a rre st was illega l beca

use he should have rec eived a citation in lieu of arrest for driving without a license a nd runninga re d light, both class C misdemeanor s. At the hea ringon the motion to suppress, the trial court ag ree d and suppressed all evidenc e seized as a result of the se arc h incident to arr est. I t is from this order that the state now appe als. Foll o wi n g o u r review, we reve rse the judg ment of the trial c ourt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t he Cr im ina l C our t i s R e ve r se d
D. KEL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which N OR MA M C G EE O G LE and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Came ro n L . H yde r, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam Cox , J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and B oyd Patterson, Assist an t District Attorney Gene ral, attorney s for a

ppellant, State of Te nnessee . Arde na J. Garth, District Public Defe nder; Christian Coder and Donna Robinson Miller, Assistant District Public Defe nders, attorney s for a ppellee, F rank B ennie Jackson, J r.

OP IN ION

The fa cts of this case wer e pre sented at the evidentiary h earingand ar e not in dispute. Chattanoog a Police De partment Of fice r Jeff Thompson te stified that he working as a patrolman on the eve ning of

May 5, 2006, when he saw the defe ndant run a red light. Offic er Thompson testified that he executed a traff

ic stop. When he asked the defe ndant for his drive r’s lice nse or identific ation,-2-

the de fe nd ant a dv ise d Of

fi c e r Th omp so n th at “ he did n’ t ha ve on e .” Th e de fe nd ant w a s c ha rg e d w ith driving without a license and running a red light. Offic er Thompson te stified thath e t o o kt he defe ndant into c ustody beca use he could not pr ovide identification or his driver’s lice nse. A sea rch of the de fenda

nt’s vehicle inc ident to the arrest uncovered coca ine, l eading to the i ndictment for a n additional char g e of posse ssion of coca ine for r esale

. The state ar gued at the e videntiary hear ing that the office r wa s statutorily authorized to take the defe ndant into c ustody for driving without a license pursuant to T enness ee C o d e Annotated section 55-5- 351. The defe ndant argued that the offe nses of driving without a license a nd running a re d li g ht w e re of

fe ns e s f or wh ic h a c itatio n s ho uld

have iss ue d in

lie u o f arres t pu rsuant to Tenne ssee Code Annotated sec tions 55-10-207 and 40-7- 118, and that the state failed to pre sent any e vid e nc e or

argume nt r e g ard ingthe e xiste nc e of e xig e nt c ir c ums tanc e s to all ow a c us tod ia l arr e st pursuant to Tenne ssee Co d e An n o t at ed section 40-7-118(c ). The tr ial court rule d in favor of the defe ndant, simply

stating “ Iag ree with the defe ndant . . . motion to suppress sustained.”

A N A LY S IS The trial court’s findings of fac t in a suppression hear ing will be upheld on appea l unless the evidenc e pre ponderates ag ainst those findings

. State v. Odom , 928 S.W .2d 18, 23 (Tenn.1996)

. Questions of cr edibility

of the witnesse s, the weight and v al u e o f t h e evide nce, a nd resolution of c on fl ic ts i n th e e vid e nc e are matte rs e ntr us te d to t he tr ia l ju dg e a s th e tr ie r o f f a c t. T he pa

rt y preva iling in the trial c ourt is entitled to the strong est leg itimate view of the e vidence adduce d at the suppression hea

ringas we ll a s all rea sonable and leg itimate inf ere nces that may

be dra wn from that evidenc e. I d. Howeve r, t he application of t he law to the t rial court’s finding s of fact i s a question of law subjec t to de novo revie w. State v. Yea rg an , 958 S.W .2d 626, 629 (Tenn.1997)

. As relied upon by

the state in their a

rgument, Tenne ssee Code Annotated s ec tion 55-50- 35 1( a ) p ro vid e s, in p e rt ine nt p art , th at: Every licensee shall have such licensee ’s l icense in immediate possession at all times when ope ratinga motor vehic le and sh al l d i s p lay it upon demand of a

ny office r or ag ent of the department or any police off

icer of the state, c ounty

or municipality

. .

. . [A] ny other law enfor ceme nt office r . . . has the right to demand the exhibiti on o f t h e license of any operator of a motor-drive n cyc le as describe d in § 55-8-101 , and ef fec t the arr est of any

person so found to be in violation of this s ection. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55- 50-351(a ) (e mphasis a dded). Thus, the state argued, Offic er Thompson ha d the statutory

rig ht to arre st the def

endant a nd the sea

rch of his vehicle incide nt to that arre st was leg al. The defenda

nt argued successfully at trial that the off icer was re quired to issue him a citation in lieu of arr est pursuant to Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 40-7-118(b) which states, in per tinent part, that “ [a] peac e of

fi ce r who ha s arr ested a person f or the c ommissi on of a misdemea nor committed in [ his] prese nce . . . sha ll issue a citation to the arr ested pe rson to appea r in court in lieu of the c ontinued custody

and takingof the a

rre sted person be fore a mag istrate.” The state argues on appea l that Tenn. Code Ann. § 55- 50-351(a ) is a spec ific statute and that Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-Furt herm o re, al t ho ugh no t necessar y t o t he d i spo si t i o n o f t he i ss ue b ef o re us, we no t e t hat t he p l ai n l anguage 1

o f T enn. C o d e A nn. § 5 5

- 5 0

- 3 5 1 (a)’ s arres t pro vi si o n ap p ears t o ap p l y o nl y t o m o t o r d ri ven cycl es as de f i ned by T enn. C o d e A n n . § 5 5 -8 -1 0 1

.
-3- 7-118 is a g ener al statute; there fore , the direc tion of the specif ic statute should control. Howe ver, be c a us e we re ve rs e the tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt o n o the r ground s, we ne e d n ot a dd re ss t he statut e s’ respe ctive natur es of g ener al or spec ific. 1
Tenne ssee Code Annotated sec tion 55-10-207(a )(1) require s citations in lieu o f ar rest for cer tain violations of t he mot or vehicle statute, with cer tain exceptions not relevant to this case found in Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 55-10-207(f) . Significa nt to our consideration, § 55-10-207(f) provides that it s provisions “shall notsuperse de the pr ovisions of § 40-7-118, nor sha ll they require the use of a

traff ic citation in lieu of ar

rest in any

of the c ircumstance s s p ecif ied in § 4-7-118( c).” Tenne ssee Code Annotated sec tion 40-17-118(c ) lists certain e x ceptions to the g ener al cite a nd rele as e re q u i rement of Tenne ssee Code Annotated sec tion 40-17-118(b)( 1). Specific ally , § 40-7- 118(c) (2) a

nd (3) pr ovide that “[n]o citation s hall be issued under the provisions of [§ 40-7- 118(b)( 1)] if: . .

. (2) [ t] here is a reasonable likelihood that the offense would continue or r esume . . . [or] (3) [t] he per son arr ested c annot or will not offe r satisfac tory evidenc e of ide ntification.”
In this case, if the defe ndant had r ece ived a c itation, he would have c ontinued to commit the offe nse of dr iving without a lice nse. F urthermor e, whe n asked f or identification, the defe ndant advised the arr esting office r that he did not have pr oper ide ntification. Ther efor e, we conclude that the trial cour

t errone ously

found that the a

rre sting off

icer in this case wa s require d to issue a citation in lieu of arr est. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-7-118( c)( 2) & (3); see also State v. Walker, 12 S.W.3d 460 (Tenn. 2000) . We further conclude that the custodial ar rest and ensuingsear ch of the defe ndant’s vehicle inc ident to that arr est wer e lega l. The judgment of the t rial court is there fore reve rsed a nd the ca se is rema

nded for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.
CONCLUSI ON The trial c ourt err ed in g rantingthe def endant’ s motion to s uppress ba sed upon its finding that the custodial ar

rest and se arc h incident to the ar rest we re illeg al. Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the tr ia l c ourt

is r e ve rs e d a

nd the c a se i s rem anded

fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s c on sis te nt w iththi s opinion.

___________________________________ D. KEL L Y THOMAS, JR ., J UDGE