State v. Rosling

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 10-18-2017
  • Case #: A161382
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Aoyagi, J. for the Court; Hadlock, C.J.; & Schuman, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Per ORS 811.370(1)(a), "drivers [are required] to operate their vehicles 'as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane.'”

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants, (DUII), ORS 813.010. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, Defendant argued that a brief departure from driving within a single lane didn't provide probable cause to make a stop under ORS 817.010. In Response, State contended that ORS 811.370(1)(a) required Defendant "to stay within a single lane at all times, unless it was impracticable for some articulable reason." Per ORS 811.370(1)(a), "drivers [are required] to operate their vehicles 'as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane.'” The Court of Appeals concluded that ORS 811.370(1)(a) requires "'some valid reason" for why a driver is unable to keep a vehicle within one lane. Since Defendant didn't provide a reason for why he could not keep his vehicle within the lane, the Court held that the officer had probable cause to stop Defendant. Affirmed.

Advanced Search