### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON Septe mb er

1, 200 9 S es sio n STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. H ARRY RICHARD D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. 08- 00280 C arol yn W ade B l acket t , Judge
N o . W 2 0 0 8 - 0 2 4 5 8 - C C A - R 3 - C D - Filed April 13, 2010

T h e D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t, H a rry R ich a rd , p led g u ilt y in th e C ri m i nal C ou rto f S h e lb y C o u n ty t o dr i vi ng w hi l e undert he i nf l uence of

an i nt oxi cant , a C l as s A m i s dem eanor . H e w as s ent ence d t o el even m ont hs and t w ent y- ni ne days i n a count y w or khous e. T hi s s ent ence w as s us pended, and R i char d w as or der ed to s er ve el even m ont hs and t w ent y- ei ghtdays on p rob ati o n . H e w as a lso a sses sed a six h u n d red d o ll ar fi n e an d o rde red to p ay fi ft ee n d o ll ars in o th e r fe e s. R ich a rd c laim s o n a p p e a l th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s upp r e s s . Pu r s u a n tt o Rul e 3 7 o f t h e Te n n e s s e e Rul e s o f Cr i m i n a l Pr o c e d u r e , h e r es er ved the fo ll o w ing ce rt if

ied q u esti o n s o f law : (1) “W h ethe r there w as reaso n ab le su sp ici o n for a tr af f i c s t op fors peedi ng”; ( 2) “W hether t her e w as pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tH arr y R i char d for D U I ”; and ( 3) “W hether p laci ng H arr y R i char d i n t he bac k of t he s quad ca rw as a ‘ br i ef d e ten tio n ’ in th is in sta n c e .” U p o n re v iew , w e a ffirm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e trial c o u rt. T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C ri m i nal C ourt A f f i rm ed C AMI LLE R. M C M ULL EN , J
. , del i ver ed the opi ni on of the cour t , i n w hi ch D AV I D H. W ELLE S and A LAN E. G LEN N , J J
. , j oi ned. R a n d a ll T o lle y , M e m p h is , T e n n e s s e e , fo r t h e D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lla n t, H a rr y R ic h a rd

. R ober tE
. C ooper , J r . , A t t or ney G ene r a l and R epor t er ; J
. R os s D yer , Seni orC ouns el ; W i l l i am L
. G i bbons , D i s tr i ctA t t or ney G ener al ; and C har l es ( B o) W
. B el l , J r . , A ssist antD i s tr i ct A t t or ney G ener al , fort he A ppel l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee. OP I NI ON Backg r ound
. R i char d w as i ndi ct ed for r eckl es s dr i vi ng and dr i vi ng w hi l e undert he infl u en ce o f a n intox ican t. T h e ch arg es aro se from a tr affic s top in S h elby C o u n ty. R icha rd filed a m o tio n to su p p re ss a ll e v id e n c e re late d to th e tra ffic sto p a n d th e su b se q u e n t ar re st. H e c laim e d th e o ffic e r lac k e d re a so n a b le su sp icio n to in iti a te th e sto p a n d p ro b a b le c a u se to s u p p o rt th e a rr e s t.-2-

M ot i on t o Supp r e s s H e ar i ng . O f f i cerK eyon Love of

t he M em phi s Pol i ce D epar t m entt es t i f

i ed thathe w as conduct i ng s t at i onar y r adaron t he eveni ng of Febr uar y 18, 2 0 0 7
. Ju st be fore 8 :00 p . m . , h e c lock ed R icha rd’s v eh icl e trav eli n g forty-five m il es p er h o u r. R i char d’ s vehi cl e w as headi ng s out hbound on B ell ev u e B oul evar d. O f f i cerL ove s ai d t he s peed l i m i ton B el l evue B o u levar d w as t w ent y- f i ve m i l es perhour

. H e tr i ed t o i ni t i at e a tr af f i c s t op, butR i char d di d noti m m edi at el y pul l over . O f f i cerL ove s ai d R i ch ar d “had tu rn e d w e stb o u n d o n N o rth P a rk w a y a n d a b o u t a m ile d o w n th e ro a d is w h e n h e a c tu a lly pul l ed over for m e. ” O f f i cer L ove s ai d R i char d “pul l ed t o t he l ef t s i de of t he curb, neart he m edi an, i n t he m iddl e of t he s tr eet
. ” O f

f i cerL ove appr oache d R i char d’ s vehi cl e w i t h t he i nt entof as ki ng R i char d forhi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e. U pon appr oach, R i char d r ol l ed hi s w i ndow dow n and bega n t al ki ng. R i char d s ai d t hathe had be en at h is b rother ’ s hous e w her e he co n su m ed “a co u p le of d ri n k s. ” O ffi ce r L o v e n o ti ce d that R icha rd h a d b lo o d sh o t, w atery eyes and s l ur r ed s peec h. O f f i cerL ove s us pect ed thatR i char d w as i nt oxi cat ed, s o he di r ect ed R i char d t o s t ep outof

hi s vehi cl e. O f

f i cerL ove s t at ed: [R i chard] neede d assi st ance from t he car. H e had braced h i m sel f up aga i nst t he ca r . H e nea r l y fel l i n t he r oadw ay. So I w ent ahea d and us her ed hi m on b a c k to m y c a r a n d h a d h im h a v e a s e a t in th e b a c k s e a t. O ffic e r L o v e tes tified th a t R ich a rd “ w a s d e fin itely u n ste a d y w ith h is w a lk w h e n h e in iti a lly gotoutof

hi s vehi cl e. ” R i char d w as nothandcuf fed. O f f i cerL ove s t at ed that w hi l e i n t he pol i ce ve hi cl e, R i char d “w as det ai ned and notf r ee t o l eave . ” O nce R i char d w as pl ace d i n t he p o lice v e h icle , O ffic e r L o v e c o n tac ted th e D U I un it. O ffic e r L o v e d id n o t co n d u c t an y fie ld s obr i et y t es t s dur i ng t he i nves t i gat i ve s t op. O n cr os s - exam i nat i on, O f f i cerL ove s ai d he cl ocked Ri char d s p ee d ing att he i nt er s ect i on of B ell ev u e B oul evar d and Tut w i l erA venue. O f f i cerL ove’ s vehi cl e w as l ocat ed on Faxon A venue, w hi ch r u n s perpendi cul art o B el l evue a nd par al l el t o T ut w i l er A v e n u e . T u tw iler A v e n u e is lo c a ted to th e n o rth o f F a x o n A v e n u e . O ffic e r L o v e sa id h is v e h i c l e wa s p a r k e d t o t h e we s to f Be l l e v u e Bo u l e v a r d , fa c i n g e a s t
. Of f i c e rL o v e wa s s h o wn a pi ctur e att he hea r i ng. T he pi ctur e w as t aken f r om Faxon A vene l ooki ng nor t h t ow ar ds t he i nt er s ect i on of

B el l evue Boul evar d and Tut w i l erA venue. O f f i cer L ove ac know l edged that t her e w er e s om e tr ees and grow t h att he cor nerof B el l evue Boul evar d and Faxon A venue; h o w e v e r, O ffic e r L o v e sa id h is v e h icle w a s p a rk e d “ o n th e o th e r sid e ,” th e re b y a llo w in g h im to v ie w th e in te rs e c tio n o f B e lle v u e B o u le v a rd a n d T u tw ile r A v e n u e . O ffic e r L o v e b e liev e d th e re w a s a sp e e d lim it sig n o n B e llev u e B o u lev a rd to th e n o rth of J acks on A venue. J acks on A venue r uns perpendi cul ar t o B el l evue B oul evar d and par al l el w i t h T ut w i l erA venue. I ti s l ocat ed t o t he nor t h of T ut w i l er A venue. O f f i cer L ove sai d w hen he f i r s ts aw R i char d’ s vehi cl e, he w as al r eady on Bel l evue B o u le var d s out h of J acks on Ave n u e . Off

i c e r Lo v e d i d n o t k n o w whe t h e r Ri c h a r d d r o v e p a s t a s p e e d l i m i t s i gn on-3-

B el l evue Boul evar d. O f f i cer L ove w as s how n t w o pi ctur es t aken f r om Faxon A venue, eac h s how i ng t he nor t h and s out h per s pect i ve of B el l evue B oul evar d. O f f i cer L ove di d nots ee a s peed l i m i ts i gn i n ei t herpi ctur e. O f f i cerL ove bel i eved he fol l ow ed R i char d on B el l evue B oul evar d fora m i l e befor e R i char d pul l ed over ; how ever , he w oul d notbe s ur pr i s ed i f t he di s t ance w as onl y a hal f

- m i l e. T he def ens e ca l l ed R i char d as i t s onl y w i t nes s . R i char d t es t i f i ed thatw hi l e dr i vi ng s out hbound on B el l evue B oul evar d, he di d not s ee a s peed l i m i t s i gn. H e s ai d O f f i cerL ove p lace d h im in the b ac k o f th e p o li ce v eh ic le w ith in a fe w m inu tes o f be ing p u ll ed o v er. R ic h a rd d id n o t b e lie v e h e w a s s p e e d in g . O n cr os s - exam i nat i on, R i char d t es t i f i ed thathe w as tr avel i ng aboutt hi r t y- f i ve m i l es perhouron B el l evue Boul evar d befor e he w as s t opped. R i char d acknow l edged thathe w as tr avel i ng t en m il es p er hour overt he pos t ed s peed l i m i ti f t he s peed l i m i tw as t w ent y- f i ve m i l es perhour

. R i char d s ai d t he s peed l i m i ton B el l evue Boul evar d w as t hi r t y- f i ve m i l es per hour

. R i char d expl ai ned t hat he t r avel ed on B el l evue B oul evar d “al l t he t i m e, ” and ther e w as a s peed l i m i ts i gn: [O ]n th e righ t si d e o f th e street, just be fore y o u g et t o F ax o n [A v en e], ri g h t off o f N o rth P ark w ay , if y o u ’re g o ing so u th. B u t, it ’s n o t po sted g o ing so u th, i t’ s p o s te d g o in g n o rt h , in th a t a re a . R ich a rd den i ed tel l i ng O ff i cer Lo ve thathe h ad b een at hi s brot her’ s hou se having d ri nk s. R i char d t es t i f

i ed thataf

t erbei ng pl ace d i n t he pol i ce ve hi cl e, he t ol d O f f i cerL ove that he cons um ed s om e dr i nks ear l i er i n t he day. R i char d s ai d he had thr ee orfourdr i nks atar ound no on or 1: 00 p. m . ata fr i e n d ’s re sidence. H e dis cl osed thi s t o O ff i cer Lo ve “[b]ecause [ O f f i cerL ove] i ns i s t ed thatI w as dr unk and I t ol d hi m t hat I w as n’ tdr unk. ” R i char d s t at ed th a t w h e n h e g o t o u t o f h is v e h icle , h is fe e t “s lip p e d o ff th e c u rb .” H e e x p lain e d th a t h is vehi cl e w as par ked on t he curb. I n w al ki ng t o t he pol i ce vehi cl e, R i char d deni ed r ece i vi ng a s s is ta n c e fr o m O ffic e r L o v e . H e a ls o d e n ie d th a t h is e y e s w e re g la s s y a n d w a te ry . T he r ecor d i ncl ud e s t he tr ans cr i ptf r om t he pr el i m i nar y hear i ng. O f f i cerD ani el B anks I I I of t he M em phi s Pol i ce D epar t m entt es t i f i ed thathe r es ponded t o O f f i cerL ove’ s cal l for a DU I t e c h n i c i a n . Off i c e rBa n k s s a i d whe n h e f i r s te n c o u n t e r e d Ri c h a r d , he not i ced a
“ stro n g o d o r o f in to x ica n t.” O ffic e r B a n k s h a d R ich a rd p e rfo rm se v e ra l so b rie ty tes ts inclu d in g a h ee l- to-t o e w alk a n d a o n e-leg g ed stan d

. O ffi ce r B an k s testi fi ed that R icha rd stru g g led to p e rfo rm th e se tes ts a s in stru c ted . R ich a rd a ttem p ted to tak e a b re a th tes t to m eas ur e hi s bl ood al cohol l evel ; how eve r , the m achi ne w as notf unct i oni ng pr oper l y. O f f i cer B a n k s c o n c lu d e d th a t R ic h a rd w a s u n d e r t h e in fl u e n c e o f a n in to x ic a n t.-4-

F o ll o w ing the su p p ression h ea ri n g , the tri al co u rtissue d an o rde r de n y ing R icha rd’s m o tio n . T h e o rd e r sta ted :

I n t hi s cas e, t her e i s n o d o u btt hatO f f i cerL ove had ga t her ed enough in fo rm a tio n to o v e rc o m e th e h u rd le o f re a so n a b le s u sp icio n in o rd e r to in iti a te a l aw f ul s t op of

t he D ef endant ’ s vehi cl e. O f

f i cerL ove t es t i f

i ed that h e w as “r unni ng r adar ” att he cor nerof B el l evue Boul evar d and Faxon A venue w hen h e “ c lo c k e d ” th e D e fe n d a n t at fo rty -fiv e m iles p e r h o u r in a tw e n ty [-]fiv e m ile p e r h o u r z o n e . O ffic e r L o v e ’s o b se rv a tio n o f h is ra d a r g u n g a v e h im r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o bel i eve thatt he D ef endanthad com m i t t ed a vi ol at i on of a T en n esse e dri vi ng s t atut e; t her efor e, t he Febr uar y 18, 2007 s t op w as law fu l. T h e D e fe n d a n t a rg u e s th a t O ffic e r L o v e d id n o t h a v e re a so n a b le s us pi ci on t o det ai n hi m af t er t he i ni t i al s t op. O f

f i cer L ove t es t i f

i ed thatw hen he s t opped the D ef

enda n t fors peedi ng, he not i ced thatt he D ef endanthad bl oods hoteyes and thathi s s peec h w as s l ur r ed. B ot h O f f i cerL ove and the D ef endantt es t i f

i ed thatt h e D efendantt ol d O f f i cerL ove thathe had a few dr i n k s t hatday. T ennes s ee c our t s have he l d t hatw hi l e thes e obs er vat i ons w oul d notgi ve an of

f i cer p robabl e ca us e t o arr es ta def endantforD U I , t hey ar e enough t o es t abl i s h t he r i ghtof an off i cer t o br i ef

l y det ai n t he defendantat t he s cene and adm i ni s t erf i el d s obr i et y t es t s orother w i s e as cer t ai n t he d e fe n d a n t’ s s ta te o f s o b ri e ty
. See St at e v. Y ear gan, 958 S. W
. 2d 626, 633 ( T enn . 1 9 9 7 )
. I n t h i s c a s e , Off i c e r Lo v e d e t a i n e d t h e Def e n d a n t i n t he bac k o f h is s q u a d c a r u n til th e D U I u n it co u ld g e t to th e sc e n e to p e rfo rm so b rie ty t es t s . B as ed on O f

f i cerL ove’ s pr i orobs er vat ion s , hi s det ent i on of t he D e fe n d a n t w a s la w fu l, an d th e D e fe n d a n t’s a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. P robable C ause t o A rr est T he D ef endantar gues t hatM em phi s po li ce off i cer s di d nothave the re q u isite p ro b a b le c a u se to a rre st h im . A n o ffic e r m a y , w ith o u t a w a rra n t, arr es ta per s on i f

t he of f i cerhas pr obabl e ca us e t o b eli eve thatt he per s on a rr e s te d h a s c o m m itte d a p u b lic o ffe n s e . T ENN . C OD E A NN . § 40- 7- 103( a) ( 1) ( 2008)
. Pr obabl e ca us e depe nds on w hether t he fa ct s and ci r cum s t ance s and r el i abl e i nfor m at i on know n t o t he of f i cer att he t i m e of

arr es tw er e s uf

f i ci ent t o w arr anta pr udentper s on i n bel i evi ng t hat t he i ndi vi dual had com m i t t ed or w as com m i t t i ng an of

fens e. St at e v. L aw r ence , 154 S
. W
. 3d 71, 76 ( T enn. 2 0 0 5 ).-5- O ffi ce r L o v e h ad p rob ab le ca u s e to a rrest th e D efe n d an t on F eb rua ry 18, 2007. O f

f i cerL ove not i ced thatt he D ef endant had bl oods hot , w at er y eyes dur i ng t he i ni t i al s t op. T he D ef endant adm i t t ed t hat he had a few dr i nks t hat day. W hen O f

f i cerL ove as k ed the D ef endantt o s t ep outof

hi s vehi cl e, t he D ef endants t um bl ed. B as ed on thes e obs er vat i ons , O f f i cerL ove det ai ned the D efe n d an t i n h is squ ad ca r an d ca ll ed a D U I officer to th e sc en e to p erfo rm f i el d s obr i et y t es t
. D ur i ng t he pr el i m i nar y hear i ng, O f f i cer L ove t es t i f

i ed that he di d notfor m al l y arr es t t he D ef endant unt i l af

t er a D U I of

f i ceradm i ni s t er ed s ever al f i el d s obr i et y t es t s and det er m i ned t hatt he D ef endantw as i nt oxi cat ed. A l l of t hes e ci r cum s t ance s w er e s uf f i ci entt o w arr anta pr udentper s on i n bel i evi ng t hatD ef

endantw as dr i vi ng w hi l e i nt oxi cat ed; t her efor e, O f f i cer L ove had pr obabl e ca use to ar r es tD ef endant , and any e vi dence obt ai ned p u rs u a n t to th e la w fu l a rr e s t is n o t s u bje c t to s u p p re s s io n . A f t ert he deni al of t he m ot i on t o s uppr es s , R i char d pl ed gui l t y t o dr i vi ng w hi l e under t he i n f l u e n c e o f

a n i n t o x i c a n t
. Pu r s u a n tt o Rul e 3 7 o f t h e Te n n e s s e e Rul e s o f Cr i m i nal P roc ed u re, he p rop erly res erv ed the foll o w ing ce rt if ied q u esti o n s o f l aw : ( 1 ) “W h ethe r th ere w a s re a so n a b le s u sp icio n fo r a tra ffic sto p fo r sp e e d in g ” ; (2 ) “ W h e th e r th e re w a s p ro b a b le caus e t o arr es t H arr y R i char d forD U I ”; and ( 3) “W hetherpl aci ng H arr y R i char d i n t he bac k o f t h e s q u a d c a r w a s a ‘b ri e f d e te n tio n ’ i n th is in s ta n c e .” A N A L Y S IS St andard of R evi ew . T he s t andar d of r evi ew appl icabl e t o s uppr es s i on i s s ues i nvol ves a mi x e d q u e s t i o n o f l a w an d f

a c t
. St a t e v . Gar c i a , 1 2 3 S. W
. 3 d 3 3 5 , 3 4 2 ( T enn. 2003 )

. “[A ] tr i al court ’ s fi ndi ng of fa cti n a s uppr es s i on hear i ng w i l l be uphel d unl es s t he evi dence pr epond era tes o therw i s e. ” St at e v. C ox, 171 S. W
. 3d 174, 178 ( T enn. 2005) (qu o ti n g S tat e 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 T en n esse e S u p rem e C o u rt e x p lain e d th is s tan d a rd in S tate v . O d o m :

Q ues t i ons of cr edi bi l i tyof the w i tnes s es, the w ei ghtand val ue of the e v id e n c e , an d re so lu tio n o f c o n f licts in th e e v id e n c e a re m a tters e n tru ste d to th e tri al j ud ge as the tri er of fact

. T he party prevai l i ng i n the tri al cou rtis ent i t l ed t o the s tr onges tl egi t i m at e vi ew of the evi d ence adduc ed atthe s uppr es s ion h ear i ng as w el l as al l r eas onabl e and l egi t i m at e i nfer ence s that m aybe dr aw n fr om thatevi dence

. So l ong as the great erw ei ghtof the evi dence s uppor t s the tr i al court ’ s fi ndi ngs , thos e fi ndi ngs s hal l be uphel d. O dom , 928 S. W
. 2d at23. T he tr i al court ’ s appl i cat i on of the l aw t o the fa ct s i s r evi ew ed de n o v o . S tat e v . E n g land , 1 9 S

. W
. 3 d 7 6 2 , 7 6 6 (T en n . 2 0 0 0 ).-6-

I. In v e stig a to r y S to p o f V e h icle

. R ich a rd c laim s O f f ice r L o v e lac k e d a re a so n a b le su sp icio n to sto p h im f

o r sp e e d in g . H e a ss e rts th e e v id e n c e d id n o t s h o w th a t th e sp e e d lim it on B el l evue Boul evar d w as tw enty - fi ve mi l es perhour ; ther efor e, O ffi cerL o v e w as not j us t i fi ed i n s t oppi ng R i char d. T he St at e r el i es upon the t es t i m onyof O ffi cer L ove and R i char d as pr oof thatR i char d w as tr avel i ng over the s peed l i m i t
. T he St at e ar gues thatthe s peedi ng vi ol at i on pr ovi ded O ffi cerL ove w i th r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s t op R i char d. U pon r evi ew , w e agr ee w i th t he St at e. T h e Fo u r t h Am e n d m e n t t o t h e Uni t e d St a t e s Con s t i t u t i o n a n d a r t i c l e I , s e c t i o n 7 of t he T ennes s ee C ons t i t ut i on pr ot ectagai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es . T he s t op of a v e h icle a n d th e d e ten tio n o f its o c c u p a n ts c o n stitu tes a se izu re w ith in th e m e a n in g o f b o th t he Four th A m en d m en t t o t he U ni t ed St at es and ar t i cl e I , s ect i on 7 of t he Tennes s ee C o n sti tuti o n . W h ren v . U n it ed S tat es, 5 1 7 U
. S
. 8 0 6 , 8 0 9 -10 , 1 1 6 S
. C t. 1 7 6 9 , 1 7 7 2 (19 9 6 ); S tat e v . B inette, 3 3 S
. W
. 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 1 8 (T en n . 2 0 0 0 ). A w arr ant l es s s ear ch or s ei zur e “i s pr es um ed unr eas onabl e, and evi dence di s cover ed as a r es ul tt her eof

i s s ubj ect t o s uppr es s i on unl es s t he St at e dem ons tr at es t hat t he s ear ch or s ei zur e w as con d u cted p ur s uantt o one of t he narr ow l y def

i ned exc ept i ons t o t he w arr ant r equi r em ent
. ” St at e v. Y ear gan, 958 S. W
. 2d 626, 629 (T en n . 1997)
. A w arr anti s not r equi r ed fo r a n i nves t i gat or y s t op i f t he of f i cerhas “a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on, s uppor t ed by s p e c if ic a n d a rt ic u la b le fa c ts , th a t a c ri m in a l o ffe n s e h a s b e e n o r i s a b o u t to b e c o m m itte d .” St at e v. B r i dges , 963 S. W
. 2d 487, 492 ( T enn. 1997) ( ci t i ng T err y v. O hi o, 392 U
. S. 1, 21, 8 8 S . C t. 18 6 8 , 1 8 8 0 (1 9 6 8 )). P ro b a b le c a u se is n o t re q u ire d fo r an in v e stig a to ry sto p . S tate v. C ol em an, 791 S. W
. 2d 504, 505 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1989) ( ci t i ng T err y, 391 U
. S. at27, 8 8 S . C t. a t 1 8 8 3 a n d H u g h e s v . S ta te , 5 8 8 S .W .2 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 5 (T e n n . 1 9 7 9 ))
. T he T enn essee Su prem e C ou rthas st at ed thata “ [r]easo nab l e suspi ci on i s a l ess d e ma n d i n g s t a n d a r d t h a n p r o b a b l e c a u s e . ” B r i d g e s , 9 6 3 S
. W
. 2 d a t4 9 2 ( q u o t i n g Al a b a ma v. W hi t e, 496 U

. S. 325, 330, 1 1 0 S
. C t
. 2412, 2416 ( 1990) )
. R eas onabl e s us pi ci on foran in v e stig a to ry sto p w ill b e fo u n d to e x ist o n ly w h e n th e e v e n ts w h ich p re c e d e d th e sto p w o u ld caus e an obj ect i vel y r eas onabl e pol i ce of f i cert o s us pectcr i m i nal act i vi t y on t he par t of t he i ndi vi dual s t opped. St at e v. L evi t t , 73 S. W
. 3d 159, 172 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 2001) ; St at e v. N o rw o rd , 9 3 8 S .W .2 d 2 3 , 2 5 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ). T h e lik e lih o o d o f c rim in a l ac tiv ity re q u ire d fo r re a so n a b le su sp icio n is n o t a s g re a t a s th a t r e q u ire d fo r p ro b a b le c a u se , an d is “cons i der abl y l es s ” than w oul d be nee ded t o s at i s f y a pr eponderan ce of

t he evi dence st and ard. U nit ed S t at es v. S ok olow , 49 0 U
. S
. 1, 7, 10 9 S
. C t
. 15 81 , 15 8 5 (1989 ); see al so S ta te v . K e ith , 9 7 8 S .W .2 d 8 6 1 , 8 6 7 (T e n n . 1 9 9 8 ). A s sta ted b y th e T e n n e ss e e S u p re m e C o u rt, “[T ]h e sto p o f a n a u to m o b ile is cons t i t ut i onal l y r eas onabl e, under bot h t he st at e and feder al cons t i t ut i ons , i f t he pol i ce ha ve-7-

p ro b a b le c a u se o r re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to b e liev e th a t a tra ffic v io latio n h a s o c c u rre d .” S tate v. V i neyar d, 958 S.W

. 2 d 7 3 0 , 7 34 ( T enn. 1997)
. T her efor e, t he s ol e i s s ue i s w hethert he evi den ce pr eponder at es agai ns tt he tr i al cour t ’ s f i ndi ng t hatR i char d w as s peedi ng. I n t he or derdenyi ng t he m ot i on t o s uppr es s , t he tr i al cour tcr edi t ed O f f i cer L ove’ s t es t i m ony t hat R i char d w as tr avel i ng for t y- f i ve m i l es per hour i n a t w ent y- f i ve m i l es perhours peed z one. O f f i cerL ove w as as ked atthe m ot i on t o s uppr es s hear i ng w hatt he s peed l i m i tw as at B ell ev u e B o u leva rd a n d T u tw il er A v en u e. H e re sp o n d ed , “T w en ty-fi v e m il es p er h o u r, i f I r em em bercorr ect
. ” O f f i cerL o v e w as l at eras ked how he knew t he s peed l i m i tw as t w ent y- f i ve m i l es perhour

. H e re s ponded, “I bel i eve t hat t hat ’ s t he pos t ed s peed l i m i ts i gn on B el l evue. ” O f

f i cerL ove s ai d he thoughtt her e w as a s peed l im it sign on B el l evue Bou l e v a r d t h a t was n o r t h o f Tu t wi l e r Ave n u e n e a r J a c k s o n Ave n u e . Th e d e fens e s how ed O ffi ce r L o v e tw o p ict u res from F ax o n A v en u e, o n e facing so u th d o w n B ell ev u e B o u leva rd and the otherfaci ng nor t h up B el l evue Boul evar d. O f f i cerL ove di d nots ee s peed l i m i ts i gns i n e i t h e r p i c t u r e . Ri c h a r d p r o v i d e d t h e o n l y o t h e r t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h e s p e e d l i m i t at B ell ev u e B o u leva rd a n d T u tw il er A v en u e. R icha rd said h e trav eled o n B ell ev u e B o u leva rd “al l t he t i m e, ” and thatt he s peed l i m i t w as t hi r t y- f i ve m i l es per hour

. R i char d t es t i f i ed that th e re w a s a s p e e d lim it s ig n o n B e lle v u e B o u le v a rd h e a d in g n o rt h n e a r F a x o n A v e n u e . B ase d o n the re co rd, th e e v iden c e d o e s n o t prep o n d era te ag ains t th e tri al co u rt ’s f i ndi ng t hatR i char d w as s peedi ng. O f f i cerL ove t es t i f

i ed th at u sing r adar , he cl ocked R i char d tr avel i ng for t y- f i ve m i l es perhour

. T he tr i al cour tfound t hatt hi s t es t i m ony w as c re d i b le , a n d w e w ill n o t o v e rr id e th a t d e te rm in a tio n . O d o m , 9 2 8 S

. W
. 2 d at 23

. R icha rd t es t i fi ed that he bel i eved the s peed l i m i t w as thi r ty - fi ve m i l es per hour

. R egar dl es s of R i char d’ s l i m i t ed pr oof of phot ogr aphs s how i ng thatther e w as nota s peed l i m i ts i gn pos t ed i n the nea rvi ci ni tyof B el l evue Boul evar d and Faxon A venue, w e ca nnotconcl ude the evi dence pr eponder at es agai ns t the fi ndi ng of the tr i al court
. T he r ecor d s how s thatO ffi cer L ove had a r eas onabl e s us pi ci o n to st op R i char d fors peedi ng. T her efor e, R i char d i s not e n title d to re lie f

o n th is is s u e . II. A rrest
. R i chard’s fi nal t w o cert i fi ed qu est i on s w i l l be ad dress ed toget her becau se t hey ar e pr edi cat ed on a com m on ar gum ent
. R i char d cont ends he w as arr es t ed once O f f i cer L ove pl ace d hi m i n t he back of t he pol i ce vehi cl e. B eca us e no s obr i et y t es t s h ad b een p e r fo r me d a tt h a tp o i n t , R i c h a r d a r g u e s Of f i c e rL o v e l a c k e d p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o a r r e s th i m. T h e S tate c laim s th e trial c o u rt d id n o t er r in fin d in g th a t O ffic e r B a n k s h a d re a so n a b le su sp ici o n to b ri efly d etain R icha rd in the p o li ce v eh icl e a n d p rob ab le ca u se to arrest R icha rd fol l ow i ng t he s obr i et y t es t s . A l t er nat i vel y, t he St at e cont ends t hatO f f i cerB anks had probab l e cause to ar res tR i chard ev en b efor e t he arr i val of O ff i cer B ank s. A n arr es ti s l aw f

ul w hen an of

f i cerhas “pr obabl e ca us e to b eli eve t he per s on t o be arr es t ed has com m i t t ed [ a] cr i m e. ” St at e v. L ew is, 36 S. W
. 3d 88, 98 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp.-8-

2 0 0 0 ). A n o ff

icer h as p rob ab le ca u se i f th e f ac ts an d circu m stan ce s k n o w n to the o ff icer are “suffici ent i n them sel ves t o w arr ant a m an o f reasonable caut i on i n the bel i ef t hat an offe nse has been ori s bei ng comm i t t ed. ” St at e v. D ay , 263 S. W
. 3d 891, 9 0 2 (T en n . 2008) ( ci t i ng B r i negarv. U ni t ed St at es , 338 U

. S. 160, 175- 76, 69 S. C t
. 1302 ( 1949) ) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed)

. “Thi s det erm i nat i on dep en d s upon ‘ w hetheratthatm om entthe fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s w i thi n [the off i ce r s ’ ] k n o wl e d g e a n do f whi ch theyhad r eas onabl ytrus tw or thy i nform at i on w er e s uffi ci entt o w arr anta prudentm an i n bel i evi ng thatthe pet i t i onerhad comm i t t ed or w as comm i t t i ng an offe ns e. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng G oi nes v. St at e, 572 S. W
. 2d 644, 6 4 7 (T en n . 1 9 7 8 ) an d q u o ti n g B ec k v . O h io, 37 9 U
. S

. 8 9 , 9 1 , 8 5 S

. C t. 2 2 3 (19 6 4 )). H ere , the tri al co u rtfo u n d that O ff icer L o v e h ad a p rob ab le ca u s e to arres t R icha rd aft erthe comp let i on of the s obr i etyt es t s . T hi s fi ndi ng i s s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. A tt he pr el i m i naryhear i ng, O ffi cerB anks testi fied thatR i char d per form ed poor l yon s ever al s obr i etyt es t s . O ffi cer B an k s al s o s ai d R i char d had “a s tr ong odorof i nt oxi cant
. ” O ffi cer B anks concl uded that R i char d w as i nt oxi cat ed. A t the m ot i on t o s uppr es s hear i ng, O ffi cer L o v e tes tifie d th a t R ich a rd h a d b lo o d sh o t eyes , slu rre d sp e e c h , an d a d m itt e d to p re v io u sly c o n s u m in g a c o u p le o f

d ri n k s . H avi ng or der ed R i char d t o s t ep outof hi s vehi cl e, O f

f i cer L ov e st at ed, “[R i chard] neede d ass i st ance f rom t he car. H e had braced h i m sel f up aga i nst t he car . H e near l y fel l i n t he roa d w ay. ” R i chard t est i fi ed thathe h ad thr ee or fou r dr i nk s, a lb e it co n sid e ra b lye a rlier in th e d a y . B a s e d o n th e f o re g o in g , O f

f ice r L o v e h a d p ro b a b le caus e t o arr es tR i char d aft erO ffi cerB anks concl uded R i char d w as i nt oxi cat ed. A ti s s ue i s w hetherR i char d w as arr es t ed bef or e he pe r form ed the sobr i ety t es t s . T he tr i al court found thatR i char d w as m er el ydet ai ned i n the pol i ce ve hi cl e bef or e O ffi cerB anks arriv e d

. A t th e su p p ression h ea ri n g , O ff icer L o v e testi fied that h e su sp ec ted th at R icha rd wa s i n t o x i c a t e d ; th e r e f

o r e , h e p l a c e d Ri c h a r d i n t h e p o l i c e v e h i c l e a n d c o n t a c t e d th e DUI uni t
. R i char d r emai ned i n the pol i ce ve hi cl e unt i l O ffi cerB anks arr i ved. O ffi cerL ove te s tif ie d th a t R ic h a rd w a s d e ta in e d in th e p o lic e v e h ic le a n d n o t f re e to le a v e . W e b e liev e th e p re se n t ca se is c o m p a ra b le to th is c o u rt’s d e c isio n in S tate v . D a v id L
. G r oom , N o. M 2002- 00798- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2003 W L 1563667 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. , at N as hvi l l e, M ar . 27, 2003)

. T her e, an off i cerr esp o n d ed t o a ca racc i denti nvol vi ng t he defe ndant

. I d. at*1. T he off i cers m el l ed the odorof al cohol on the def endant

. T he off

i cer r adi oed the di s pat cher t o r eport the acci dent and re ques t ed t he pre s ence of an i nves t i gat i ng offi cer . T he off

i ceri ns truct ed the def

endantt o r emai n atthe s cene of the ac ci dent

. T he off i cer then dir ect ed the traffi c caused by the acci den t
. H e did not cond uct anysobri et yt est s. T he i nves t i gat i ng offi cerarr i ved w it h i n thi r tym i nut es . I d. at*2. H e not i ced thatt he defe ndanthad bl oods hotey es , s l urr ed s peec h, and s truggl ed t o m ai nt ai n h is b alanc e. T he in v e stig a tin g o f

f ice r th o u g h t th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s in to x ica ted , s o h e o rd e re d th e d e f e n d a n t to sit in th e b a c k o f th e p a tro l v e h icle w h ile h e o b tain e d in f o rm a tio n f

ro m o th e rs in v o lv e d in-9-

the acc i dent

. W hen the i nves t i gat i ng offi cerr eturned, the def endantadmi t t ed t o havi ng a fe w beer s ear l i erthatni ght

. T he defe ndant then per form ed s obr i ety t es t s , w hi ch he fai l ed. T he d e f e n d a n t a ls o f

a ile d a b re a th te s t. I d . a t * 2

. In D a v id L . G ro o m , this c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w a s n o t ar re ste d u n til aft er he t oo k the sobri et y t est s. Id. at *4

. T he courtst at ed thatw hen the o ri ginal off i cer fi rs t encount er ed the def

endant a n d sm el l ed the al cohol , he had the r i ghtt o br i efl ydet ai n the d e f e n d a n t to d e ter m in e h is s tate o f so b rie ty . T h e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e th irty -m in u te det ent i on w as notunr eas onabl e bec aus e “the off i cerdi l i gentl y pur s ued a means of i nv est i gati ng his suspi cio n s re g a rd i ng the d efen dan t ’s i ntoxi cat i on . ” Id. T he co urtal so s t at ed thatonce the i nves t i gat i ng offi cers m el l ed al cohol on the def enda n t, “the [ in v e stig a tin g ] o f

f ice r h a d a p p ro p ria te r e a so n a b le su sp icio n to d e tain th e d e f e n d a n t f o r f ield sobri et y t est s. ” T he cou rt con cl ud ed that after the defe nd ant pe rfor m ed p oo rl yon the tes t s, th e in v e s tig a tin g o f

f ic e r h a d p ro b a b le c a u s e f o r t h e a rr e s t. I d

. A s addr es s ed above , the i nves t i gat orys t op w as i ni t i al l yj us t i fi ed bythe s peedi ng vi ol at i on. L i ke the off

i ceri n D avi d L

. G r oom , O ffi cerL o v e su sp ec ted t hatthe def endant w as i nt oxi cat ed. H i s s us pi ci on w as r eas onabl e bas ed on hi s obs ervat i ons thatR i char d’ s ey es w er e bl oods hotand w at ery , hi s s peec h w as s l urr ed, he s truggl ed t o m ai nt ai n bal ance , and he admi t t ed t o havi ng a coupl e of dr i nks

. B as ed on thi s r eas onabl e sus pi ci on, O ffi cer L ove w as p e rm itt e d to b rie f

lyd e tain R ich a rd in o rd e r to d e ter m in e h is s tate o f so b rie ty . S e e id .; S tate v. J as hua Shannon Si des , N o. E 2000- 01422- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2001 W L 523375, at*3 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. , atK noxvi l l e, M ay16, 2001) ( O ffi cer ’ s s t at ementthathe det ect ed the odorof a lco h o l o n th e d e f

e n d a n t “d id su f

f icie n tlye sta b lish th e rig h t o f th e o f f ice r to b rie f

lyd e tain th e d e f e n d a n t at th e sc e n e a n d a d m in iste r f ield so b rie tytes ts o r o th e rw ise a sc e rta in d ef en d an t’ s state of so b ri ety
. ”) (cit ing S tat e v . Y ea rga n , 9 5 8 S

. W
. 2 d 6 2 6 , 6 3 3 (T en n . 1 9 9 7 )); St at e v. G r egoryL
. A nder s on, N o. M 2002- 02289- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2003 W L 22490192, at*3 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p ., a t N a s h v ille , O c t. 3 1 , 2 0 0 3 ). T h u s , th e re m a in in g is s u e is w h e th e r t h e d e te n tio n w a s re a s o n a b le

. I f “ t he t i m e, m a n n e r o r sc o p e o f th e in v e stig a tio n e x c e e d s” th e a m b it o f re a so n a b len e ss , a c o n stitu tio n a lly per m i s s i bl e s t op m ay be tr ans for m ed i nt o one w hi ch vi ol at es th e Four t h A m endm entand ar t i cl e 1, s ect i on 7 of

t he Tennes s ee Const i t ut i on. U ni t ed St at es v. C hi l ds , 256 F. 3d 559, 564 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ); see also S tat e v . M o reloc k , 8 5 1 S
. W
. 2 d 8 3 8 , 8 4 0 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ); S t a t e v . Ke v o n F l y , No
. E 2 0 0 6

- 0 1 9 7 9

- C C A- R 3

- C D, 2 0 0 7 W L 2 1 4 1 5 4 3 , a t * 5 ( T e n n . C r i m. A pp. , at K noxvi l l e, J ul y 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 ). R i chard’s det ent i on “m us tbe t em por ar y and l as tno l on ge rt ha n i s ne c e s s a r y t o e f fe c t ua t e t he pu r po s e of

t he s t op . ” Fl or i da v. Roye r , 46 0 U. S. 491, 500, 103 S. C t
. 1319, 1325 ( 1983)
. “[ T ] he pr operinq u ir y is w hetherdur i ng t he d eten ti o n , the p o li ce d il igen tl y p u rsue d a m ea n s o f in v esti g ati o n that w as li k ely to co n fi rm o r disp el t h eir susp ici o n s q u ickly

. ” S tat e v . S im p so n , 9 6 8 S
. W
. 2 d 7 7 6 , 7 8 3 (T en n . 1 9 9 8 ).-10-

H er e, the r ecor d s how s thatO ffi cerL ove appr oache d R i char d’ s vehi cl e t o addr es s t he s peedi ng vi ol at i on. U pon s us pect i ng thatR i char d w as i nt oxi cat ed, he as ked R i char d t o s t ep o u t of h is v eh icl e. W h en R icha rd strug g led to m aintain b alan ce , O ff icer L o v e p lace d R icha rd i n the bac k of hi s pol i ce ve hi cl e and cont act ed the D U I uni t
. W hen O ffi cerB anks arr i ved, h e h ad R icha rd p e rf

o rm th e so b ri etytest s. B ase d o n the e v iden ce p rese n ted, bo th o ff icers w ere d il ige n t in d eterm ining w h ethe r R icha rd w as in tox icated

. N o thing in the rec o rd pr eponder at es otherw i s e. T her efor e, w e conc l ude thatR i char d’ s det ent i on w as r eas onabl e. T he evi dence does notpr eponder at e aga i ns tthe tr i al court ’ s fi nd i n g s th a tO ffi cerL ove had reas on able s uspici on t o d et ai n R i chard i n the poli ce veh i cl e and probab l e cause to arres t R i char d aft erthe s obr i etyt es t s w er e compl et ed. A ccor di ngl y , R i char d i s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef on his fi nal tw o cert i fi ed q uest i on s. C oncl usi on . B as ed on the for egoi ng, t he j udgm entof t he tr i al cour ti s af

f i r m ed.

___________________________________ CA M I L L E R. M c M UL L E N, J UDGE