Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM MACK GROSS Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County No. 225943 Douglas A. Meyer, Judge

No. E2000-00039-CCA-R3-CD - Decided July 6, 2000

Defendant William Mack Gross pled guilty to violation of the habitual motor vehicle offender law, reserving the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37, Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The precise issue reserved was whether the stop of his vehicle by a law enforcement officer, based upon a citizen's call to the police department of a "suspicious vehicle" violated his constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. After review of the record, briefs of the parties, and hearing arguments of counsel, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the indictment. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Reversed and Dismissed. WOODALL , J. delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAMS, J. and GLENN, J. joined. Lloyd A. Levitt, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, William Mack Gross. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, Elizabeth B. Marney, Assistant Attorney General, William H. Cox, III, District Attorney General, and Parke Masterson, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION FACTS During the suppression hearing, Officer Larry Nabors of the Soddy Daisy Police Department testified that at approximately 2:00 a.m. on September 30, 1998, he was dispatched to investigate a suspicious vehicle at a trailer park. The dispatcher advised Nabors that an upset woman had reported that she had been followed into the trailer park by a decommissioned police vehicle. The woman also reported that the driver of the vehicle had stopped in front of her residence and turned the vehicle's lights off. Officer Nabors testified that approximately five minutes after he received the dispatch, he drove to the trailer park and went to the lot number indicated by the dispatcher, but he did not see

the vehicle that had been described. Nabors then left the trailer park and he parked his vehicle in the parking lot of an adjacent store. Approximately five minutes later, Nabors saw the decommissioned police car come out of the trailer park. At his point, Nabors activated his blue lights and stopped the vehicle. Nabors then learned that Defendant was driving the vehicle in violation of a habitual motor vehicle offender order. Officer Nabors testified that the dispatcher had not reported that the vehicle had done anything illegal or that anyone had committed a crime that involved the vehicle. Nabors admitted that the "vehicle wasn't involved in any type of violation of law", and the sole reason he stopped the vehicle was to find out what the driver was doing in the trailer park. ANALYSIS Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the evidence obtained after he was stopped by Officer Nabors. A. A trial court's factual findings on a motion to suppress are conclusive on appeal unless the evidence preponderates against them. State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996). However, the application of the law to the facts is a question of law which is reviewed de novo on appeal. State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997). B. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . ." U.S. Const. amend IV. Similarly, Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution guarantees, "That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures . . . ." Tenn. Const. art. I,

Download grosswm.pdf

Tennessee Law