IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

February 12, 2020 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAMES ROBERT BLACK, JR.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lawrence County

No. CR-35387 Stella L. Hargrove, Judge

___________________________________

No. M2019-00880-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

Defendant, James Robert Black, Jr., was charged in a seven-count indictment returned by 

the Lawrence County Grand Jury with DUI second offense, DUI per se second offense, 

reckless driving, violation of the open container law, violation of the child restraint law, 

driving his vehicle left of the center of the road, and violation of the implied consent law. 

All the charges were the result of one traffic stop of Defendant by a trooper of the 

Tennessee Highway Patrol. Defendant filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized on 

the basis that the trooper made an unconstitutional stop of Defendant’s vehicle without 

probable cause or reasonable suspicion supported by specific and articulable facts that a 

crime had been, or was about to be, committed. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial 

court granted the motion. As a result, the charges were dismissed upon motion of the 

State and the State filed an appeal as of right. After review, we affirm the judgment of 

the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W.

WEDEMEYER and ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JJ., joined.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Caitlin Smith, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General; Brent A. Cooper, District Attorney General; and J. Victoria Haywood, 

Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellant, State of Tennessee.

Kevin S. Latta, Columbia, Tennessee, for the appellee, James Robert Black, Jr.

05/27/2020
- 2 -

OPINION

Testimony at Suppression Hearing

Jonathan Pulley, a trooper with the Tennessee Highway Patrol, testified that on 

August 5, 2017, at approximately 10:57 p.m., he was on patrol as a passenger in a 

southbound patrol car on Buffalo Road. Another trooper with Trooper Pulley for training 

purposes was driving. Trooper Pulley’s vehicle came upon a pickup truck also driving 

southbound. Trooper Pulley testified that the pickup truck’s driver’s side wheels came 

across the center of the road. Trooper Pulley added that the area where he was on patrol 

had high DUI activity. 

Trooper Pulley testified that a video of the pickup truck was recorded as it was 

being followed. As the video was played during the hearing, Trooper Pulley provided 

some narrative. Trooper Pulley acknowledged that video recordings are difficult to 

observe sometimes because they are fuzzy while the vehicles are moving. He stated it 

may be hard to see the vehicle cross the center line on the video. According to the 

transcript, the video recording began at 10:57:49 p.m. and ended after the pickup came to 

a complete stop at 10:59:30 p.m.

Trooper Pulley testified that the sole reason for stopping the pickup truck, which 

was driven by Defendant, was because he saw Defendant cross the center line one time.

On cross-examination, Trooper Pulley testified that in training other troopers, he 

instructs them to always stop a vehicle as soon as a violation of the law is observed. He 

stated that he did not have a gut feeling that he would find a drunk driver when he first 

saw Defendant’s vehicle. Trooper Pulley added, “Just making stops, that’s what it’s 

about . . . . Stop the next one. Stop the next one. [sic] Look beyond the ticket.” Trooper 

Pulley stated that the video clearly shows that Defendant’s vehicle went across the center 

line even though it “may not have been far.” The video recording was made an exhibit. 

Following argument by both parties, the trial court stated as follows:

THE COURT: I am going to grant the motion. I know that trooper 

does a good job but I am going to grant the motion 

in this case, the motion to suppress.

Subsequently, the trial court entered an order granting Defendant’s motion to 

suppress. The order states:
- 3 -

Defendant moved to suppress all evidence seized as the result of 

the investigatory stop in Lawrence County, TN on or about the 5th day of 

August, 2017, as well as any/all results of chemical tests obtained by 

Search Warrant and all statements written and oral, made by the 

defendant. 

The Motion to Suppress is hereby GRANTED

Upon the State’s request for an order of nolle prosequi, the trial court dismissed all 

charges against Defendant. The State filed a timely notice of appeal.

Analysis

On appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred by granting Defendant’s 

motion to suppress. The State also correctly pointed out that the trial court failed to make 

findings of fact or credibility determinations upon which to base its decision granting the 

motion. However, in its brief, the State urges this court to just review the video recording 

entered as an exhibit and draw its own conclusions, which we are entitled to do under 

certain circumstances. State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 217 (Tenn. 2000). In such 

situations when the trial court fails to make findings of fact which are specific to the 

issues, this court may review the record to determine the preponderance of the evidence. 

Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450, 457 n. 5 (Tenn. 2001). In Fields, our supreme court, in 

the cited passage, stated that the holding in Binette was applicable “when the only 

evidence considered . . . was that of a video tape.” Id. (parenthetical to citation of 

Binette). In Binette, also a DUI case wherein the State justified the stop in part because 

the defendant had driven across the center line of the road, the arresting officer did not 

testify, but the videotape of his recording of defendant’s vehicle was entered as an 

exhibit. Based solely upon the videotape, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to 

suppress. The defendant reserved a certified question of law in his guilty plea and 

appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Our supreme court granted the 

defendant’s application to appeal and reversed the lower courts, the conviction was 

vacated, and the DUI charge was dismissed. Binette, 33 S.W.3d at 216. The court held,

Accordingly, we hold that when a trial court’s findings of fact at a 

suppression hearing are based on evidence that does not involve issues of 

credibility, a reviewing court must examine the record de novo without a 

presumption of correctness.

Id. at 218.
- 4 -

The State urges that as long as the trooper had reasonable suspicion, based upon 

specific articulable facts, that defendant had committed or was about to commit a 

criminal offense, the stop was constitutional. The State relies upon the trooper’s 

reasonable suspicion that Defendant had violated Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-

8-115(a), which is a class C misdemeanor. That statute provides as follows:

55-8-115. Driving on right side of roadway – Exceptions.

(a) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be 

driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:

(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle

proceeding in the same direction under the rules 

governing such movement;

(2) When the right half of a roadway is closed to traffic 

while under construction or repair;

(3) Upon a roadway divided into three (3) marked lanes 

for traffic under the applicable rules thereon; or

(4) Upon a roadway designated and signposted for oneway traffic.

After oral argument in this case, this court entered an order directing the trial court 

to supplement the appellate record with findings of fact as mandated by Tennessee Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 12(e). (“When factual issues are involved in deciding a motion, 

the court shall state its essential findings on the record.”).

The trial court filed the order supplementing the appellate record. The trial court’s 

findings of fact included an observation that Trooper Pulley testified that Defendant’s 

wheels crossed the center line. However, while acknowledging that Trooper Pulley “is 

always a good, reliable witness before the Court,” the trial court found that he was not 

“adamant” in his testimony and that Trooper Pulley “simply submitted all issues 

concerning the stop to the Court.”

By simply quoting Trooper Pulley’s testimony in the context that it was done, the 

trial court did not make a finding of fact that Defendant had crossed the center line. 

“Adamant” is defined as “utterly unyielding in attitude or opinion; inflexible.” 

WEBSTER’S COLLEGE DICTIONARY (1991). Thus, the trial court found that in this case, 

Trooper Pulley’s demeanor and sureness of what he thought he observed was not strong. 
- 5 -

The trial court made a specific finding of fact that “Defendant was weaving some, but 

was staying within his lane of travel.” By making an implicit finding of fact that Trooper 

Pulley’s testimony that Defendant crossed the center line was not, in this particular case, 

credible enough to find that Defendant crossed the center line, this court cannot simply 

review the videotape to make our own de novo review. See Binette, 33 S.W.3d at 217 

(reviewing findings of fact at a suppression hearing under a purely de novo standard 

when the only evidence considered by the trial court was that of a videotape). 

On appellate review of suppression issues, the prevailing party “is entitled to the 

strongest legitimate view of the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing as well as 

all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from the evidence.” State v. 

Talley, 307 S.W.3d 723, 729 (Tenn. 2010) (quoting State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 

(Tenn. 1996)). Questions about “the assessment of witness credibility, the weight and 

value of evidence, and the resolution of evidentiary conflicts are entrusted to the trial 

court” as the trier of fact. State v. Meeks, 262 S.W.3d 710, 722 (Tenn. 2008) (citing State 

v. Scarborough, 201 S.W.3d 607, 615 (Tenn. 2006)). When the trial court “makes 

findings of fact in the course of ruling upon a motion to suppress, those findings are 

binding on appeal unless the evidence in the record preponderates against them.” Id. 

(citing State v. Berrios, 235 S.W.3d 99, 104 (Tenn. 2007)). Conversely, a trial court’s 

conclusions of law along with its application of the law to the facts are reviewed de novo 

without any presumption of correctness. Id. (citing State v. Hayes, 188 S.W.3d 505, 510 

(Tenn. 2006)). 

Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 

7 of the Tennessee Constitution guarantee the right to be free from unreasonable searches 

and seizures. A vehicle stop and detention of the vehicle’s occupants constitutes a 

seizure under both constitutions. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996); 

Binette, 33 S.W.3d at 218. In the context of a traffic stop, a person is seized when the 

officer activates the cruiser’s blue lights. Binette, 33 S.W.3d at 218. Generally, “under 

both the federal and state constitutions, a warrantless search or seizure is presumed 

unreasonable, and evidence discovered as a result thereof is subject to suppression unless 

the State demonstrates that the search or seizure was conducted pursuant to one of the 

narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 

626, 630 (Tenn. 1997). The State has the burden to demonstrate, by a preponderance of 

the evidence, that a warrantless search passes constitutional muster. State v. Harris, 280 

S.W.3d 832, 839 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). 

A warrant is not required for an investigatory stop “when the officer has a 

reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that a criminal offense 

has been or is about to be committed.” State v. Bridges, 963 S.W.2d 487, 492 (Tenn. 

1997); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968); Binette, 33 S.W.3d at 218; Yeargan, 
- 6 -

958 S.W.2d at 630. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard of proof than probable 

cause, but it must be more than the officer’s “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 

hunch.’” State v. Hanning, 296 S.W.3d 44, 49 (Tenn. 2009) (quoting State v. Day, 263 

S.W.3d 891, 902 (Tenn. 2008)). Our supreme court has explained that reasonable 

suspicion is “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the subject of a stop of 

criminal activity.” Binette, 33 S.W.3d at 218. Reasonable suspicion exists when 

“specific and articulable facts . . . taken together with rational inferences from those facts, 

reasonably warrant that intrusion.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 21. 

In State v. Brown, 294 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2009), an appeal from denial of a 

motion to suppress in a certified question of law, our supreme court stated:

Although we are hampered in our analysis by the lack of any specific 

findings by the trial court regarding the manner in which the package 

was opened, the trial court implicitly accredited Trooper Hoppe’s 

testimony in denying the motion to suppress. Trooper Hoppe testified 

that he peeled a corner up where the package was taped and smelled the 

odor of cocaine. Peeling up tape on the corner of a package could hardly 

be categorized as a destructive opening.

Id. at 565. (Emphasis added).

If an appellate court is permitted, under certain circumstances, to conclude the trial 

court implicitly accredited an officer’s testimony by denying a motion to suppress, it is 

both logical and consistent that an appellate court can conclude that a trial court 

implicitly did not accredit an officer’s testimony by granting the motion to suppress. In 

this case, this conclusion is supported by the trial court’s specific finding that Trooper 

Pulley was not “adamant” in his testimony.

The trial court reviewed the testimony of the only witness and made an implicit 

finding that his testimony was not credible in this case as to whether Defendant crossed 

the center line before the stop was initiated by the patrol car’s blue lights being turned on. 

The trial court found that the videotape showed that while Defendant weaved, he stayed 

within his lane of travel. Even if we could make our ruling based solely upon our view of 

the videotape, we would be unable to conclude that the trial court erred by granting the 

motion to suppress.

The State is not entitled to relief in this appeal.
- 7 -

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court granting the motion to suppress is affirmed. 

Likewise, the trial court’s order dismissing all counts in the indictment, done upon the 

State’s request, is affirmed. The trial court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal 

for each count of the indictment.

____________________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE