This court has held that crossing a lane marker once constitutes reasonable suspicion of a single lane violation. This court has also held that crossing the fog line on two occasions amounts to reasonable suspicion. And so does repeatedly touching the fog line and crossing it four to six times. Here, Gross' truck touched the fog line twice. Deputy Anderson did not have reasonable suspicion that Gross committed a single lane violation because his truck never crossed the fog line.
This court has held that crossing the centerline once constitutes reasonable suspicion of a right of center violation. Here, Gross' truck touched the centerline once. Deputy Anderson did not have reasonable suspicion that Gross committed a right of center violation because his truck never crossed the centerline.
Furthermore, the district court's factual finding that Gross did not otherwise drive erratically is also supported by substantial competent evidence—again, the video. This forecloses any argument that Deputy Anderson had reasonable suspicion of DUI.
Because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the car, the COA upheld Judge Helmer's suppression order.
[Update: the state did not file a PR and the mandate issued on August 30, 2012.]
No comments:
Post a Comment