The State must establish compliance with these elements by a mere preponderance of the evidence. State v. Arnold, 80 S.W.3d 27, 29 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). This Court will "presume that the trial court's Sensing decision is correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is to the contrary."

The State must establish compliance with these elements by a mere preponderance of the evidence. State v. Arnold, 80 S.W.3d 27, 29 (Tenn. Crim.App. 2002). This court will "presume that the trial court's Sensing decision is correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is to the contrary."

First, the officer must have observed the defendant for twenty-minutes. State v. Arnold, 80 S.W.3d 27, 29 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). "An officer may not guess, estimate or approximate the amount of time the subject was under observation.

" It is our view, therefore, that the state's argument would have merit only if the defendant had pled guilty to Count 1. Because the defendant pled guilty to Count 2, which specifically requires a determination of his blood alcohol level, the question of whether the trial court properly overruled the motion to suppress the results of the blood alcohol test is dispositive of this case. See State v. Craig S. Cook, No. M2002-02460-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 4 n. 2 (Tenn.Crim.App., at Nashville, Dec. 9, 2004); State v. Terry A. Hawkins, No. M2002-01819-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 3 n. 1 (Tenn.Crim.App., at Nashville, April 6, 2004); State v. Arnold, 80 S.W.3d 27, 28 n. 1 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2002). In State v. Sensing, 843 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn.

First, the officer must have observed the defendant for twenty-minutes. State v. Arnold, 80 S.W.3d 27, 29 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2002). "An officer may not guess, estimate or approximate the amount of time the subject was under observation.

In other words, while the purpose of the observation period can certainly be satisfied by the arresting officer or operator's relying on senses in conjunction with sight, to suggest that looking at the driver is unnecessary to "observing," just does not ring true. SeeState v. Arnold, 80 S.W.3d 27, 30 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2002) (stating, in pertinent part, "a belch or regurgitation sufficient to skew the results of a breath analysis test may not produce a sound loud enough to be heard by another person"); see alsoState v. Carson, 988 P.2d 225, 227 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999). The Director further contends that the observation-period requirement is satisfied even when the arresting officer or operator fails to watch the driver as long as the purpose of the requirement is met — ensuring that the driver did not smoke, put anything in his mouth, or vomit, citing Hansen, 22 S.W.3d at 773; McKown, 908 S.W.2d at 179; Daniels, 48 S.W.3d at 45; and Wyssman, 696 S.W.2d at 848.

Each of the Sensing requirements must be established by the State by a preponderance of evidence.State v. Arnold, 80 S.W.3d 27, 29 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2002). On appeal, the trial court's findings of fact regarding theSensing requirements are presumed correct unless the evidence contained in the record preponderates against them.

In other words, while the purpose of the observation period can certainly be satisfied by the arresting officer or operator's relying on senses in conjunction with sight, to suggest that looking at the driver is unnecessary to "observing," just does not ring true. SeeState v. Arnold, 80 S.W.3d 27, 30 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002) (stating, in pertinent part, "a belch or regurgitation sufficient to skew the results of a breath analysis test may not produce a sound loud enough to be heard by another person"); see also State v. Carson, 988 P.2d 225, 227 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999). The Director further contends that the observation-period requirement is satisfied even when the operator fails to watch the driver as long as the purpose of the requirement is met — ensuring that the driver did not smoke, put anything in his mouth, or vomit, citing Hansen, 22 S.W.3d at 773; McKown, 908 S.W.2d at 179; Daniels, 48 S.W.3d at 45; and Wyssman, 696 S.W.2d at 848.

This Court has recognized two distinct elements of the Sensing twenty-minute observation requirement.State v. Arnold, 80 S.W.3d 27, 29 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2002). The State must establish that (1) the officer observed the Defendant for twenty minutes and (2) the Defendant did not "smoke, drink, eat, chew gum, vomit, regurgitate, belch or hiccup during the twenty minutes prior to the test."

1999). Pursuant to the twenty-minute observation requirement, the prosecution must establish (1) the officer observed the defendant for twenty minutes; and (2) the defendant did not smoke, drink, regurgitate, or have foreign matter in his or her mouth.State v. Arnold, 80 S.W.3d 27, 29 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2002). Although Sensing does not require an "unblinking gaze for twenty minutes," the police officer "must be watching the defendant rather than performing other tasks."