Ohio Supreme Court Rules That Momentary Drift is Grounds for Traffic Stop and Search

Last month, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in State v. Mays that a momentary drift of a few inches over the white line at the edge of the road provides sufficient grounds for a police officer to initiate a traffic stop.

In the case of State v. Mays, an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper was driving through Newark, Ohio, on March 26, 2006, when he saw the vehicle in front of him drift across the white fog line by approximately one tire width. A few moments later, he observed the same occurrence. The trooper continued to follow the vehicle for approximately one and a half miles, but did not observe any further traffic violations. The trooper then signaled to the driver to pull over the vehicle.

The trooper approached the car and asked the driver, Christopher Mays, for his driver license. Instead of providing his driver license, Mays handed the officer a credit card instead. The trooper also noticed that Mays had blood-shot, glassy eyes, and smelled of alcohol. Mays was then asked to step out of the vehicle and perform a series of field sobriety tests, which he refused to do. The trooper then arrested Mays, who was subsequently charged with operation of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(a)(1)(a) and crossing marked lanes in violation of R.C. 4511.33.

During court proceedings, the Licking County Municipal Court Judge sustained Mays' motion to suppress after hearing the evidence and concluding that the trooper did not have a reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop in the first place. As a result of this opinion, the judge threw the charges out against Mays.

However, following the judge's decision to throw out the case, the state appeals court reversed the municipal court's judgment, insisting that a police officer can stop and interrogate anyone, even if a violation has not been committed. The state supreme court subsequently agreed with the state appeals court's interpretation.

The court ruled that, "[w]hile a defendant may argue that there were reasons for which he or she should not have been convicted of a violation of [the marked-lane statute], an officer is not required to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has violated the marked lane statute in order to make a traffic stop nor must an officer eliminate all possible innocent explanations for someone going over the edge lines. The officer need only have a reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that the driver violated the marked lane statute." [State v. Mays, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-4539.]

Please take some time to visit our websites:
San Francisco DUI Attorney
San Mateo DUI Lawyer
Marin County DUI Defense
Northern California DUI Defense Lawyers
San Francisco County DUI Defense Lawyers