State of Tennessee v. Erik Sean Potts, M2020-01489-CCA-R3-CD

Police responded to a McDonald’s report of a driver asleep in the drive‑through; Sergeant Camargo made an initial brief, consensual welfare check and the driver said he was okay.
Camargo was asked to re‑check the vehicle; after the driver pulled around and exited, Camargo observed unsteadiness and an odor of alcohol and began field sobriety testing.
Defendant was indicted on multiple DUI‑related counts; he moved to suppress evidence claiming the stop/second encounter was an unconstitutional seizure/search.
Trial court denied the suppression motion, finding the encounter began as a community‑caretaking/welfare check and later produced reasonable suspicion/probable cause once alcohol was detected.
Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea reserving a certified question of law challenging the legality of the stop/second approach; the trial court certified the question as dispositive with consent of the parties.
The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding the certified question failed Rule 37(b)(2)(A)/Preston requirements because it was not dispositive and was overly broad.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the officer’s second approach/ordering defendant out and ensuing tests constituted a valid seizure/search under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, §7	State did not substantively contest the stop on appeal; rather argued the appeal must be dismissed because the certified question fails Rule 37’s dispositive/scope requirements	Potts argued the second approach was not justified by community‑caretaking or reasonable suspicion/probable cause and thus the seizure/search was unconstitutional	Court did not reach the merits: dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the certified question was not dispositive and was overly broad under Rule 37/Preston
Whether the certified question met Rule 37(b)(2)(A)/Preston (scope, limits, dispositive)	The State argued the certified question was not dispositive of the conviction and failed to identify the scope/limits required by Preston	Potts relied on certified question reserved in plea order as sufficient to reach the suppression merits	Court held the certified question failed Preston/Rule 37: it did not clearly identify scope/limits and was not dispositive; jurisdiction lacking, appeal dismissed

State v. Preston, 759 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. 1988) (sets mandatory Preston requirements for certified questions following conditional pleas)
State v. Pendergrass, 937 S.W.2d 834 (Tenn. 1996) (Preston requirements are mandatory to confer appellate jurisdiction)
State v. Irwin, 962 S.W.2d 477 (Tenn. 1998) (judgment may incorporate by reference another document that satisfies Preston)
State v. Armstrong, 126 S.W.3d 908 (Tenn. 2003) (rejects substantial compliance with Preston requirements)
State v. Dailey, 235 S.W.3d 131 (Tenn. 2007) (dispositive question defined: appellate court must affirm or reverse and dismiss)
State v. Wilkes, 684 S.W.2d 663 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984) (question is not dispositive when reversal could lead to remand)