Readers of this blog are aware of my discussions of Probable Cause to stop. As discussed, an officer need not have probable cause to stop a vehicle but must posses a “reasonable suspicion” that a traffic violation is occurring. As established by a number of courts, “...an officer does not need probable cause to make a traffic stop; reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that a traffic law is being violated or that criminal activity is occurring is sufficient to meet constitutional requirements,” In re Eric W., Alleged Delinquent Child (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 367, 369-370, 680 N.E.2d 1275, 1276, citing State v. Wireman (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 451, 453, 621 N.E.2d 542, 543-544; see, also, Delaware v. Prouse (1979), 440 U.S. 648, 663, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1401, 59 L.Ed.2d 660, 673-674.
The issue is what constitutes sufficient facts to warrant a stop. Typical of these cases, is the “weaving” cases where the officer claims they observed the driver weaving back and forth or crossing the center line thus justifying the stop. A recent Fifth Appellate District Court (Licking County) addressed the above issue. In the case of State v. Houck, 2011 Ohio 6359, the officer testified he observed the defendant’s vehicle swerve. back and forth within its lane of travel. He testified at one point the vehicle crossed the yellow center line. In its analysis, the court first reiterated the long standing rule that the officer need not observe an actual traffic violation but possess a reasonable suspicion that a violation is occurring. The court went on to cite State v. Gullett (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 138, 145, 604 N.E.2d 176, 180-181 which opined that “In Ohio, when a driver commits only a de minimis marked-lanes violation, there must be some other evidence to suggest impairment before an officer is justified in stopping the vehicle...the mere crossing of an edge line on two occasions did not constitutionally justify the stop.” The court sent to say, “this court has held that where there is no evidence of erratic driving, other than what can be considered as insubstantial drifts across the lines, there is not sufficient evidence to justify an investigative stop. State v. Drogi (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 466, 469, 645 N.E.2d 153, 155. However, as discussed above, under certain circumstances, an incident or incidents of crossing lines in the road may give a police officer reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle, depending on those factors that indicate the severity and extent of such conduct. Id; State v. Johnson, 105 Ohio App.3d at 40, 663 N.E.2d at 677." In review of the video introduced in the lower court the appellate court observed that it “...affirmatively demonstrates Appellee's vehicle did not appear to swerve back and forth and does not appear to drive left of center.” The Fifth Appellate District Court concluded that a de minimus marked lanes violation without any further indication of erratic driving is fails to establish articulable suspicion upon which to base the initial stop.