State of Oregon v. Benjamin Guthrie Koteen

McMinnville, Oregon, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with one count of driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010.



Defendant sought to suppress vidence that derived from a traffic stop. He contended that the officer who stopped him lacked probable cause to believe that defendant committed the offense of "failure to drive within a lane" as set forth in ORS 811.370(1). That statute provides, in relevant part, that "a person commits the offense of failure to drive within a lane if the person is operating a vehicle upon a roadway that is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic and the driver does not *** [o]perate the vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane." Id. Because we conclude that the officer who stopped defendant had probable cause to believe that defendant violated ORS 811.370(1) when he failed to drive within a lane.



* * *



Legal issue Did the police officer have probable cause to stop the defendant for failing to drive within a lane under ORS 811.370(1)?

Headnote



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE. The case involves an appeal regarding the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop, with the defendant arguing the officer lacked probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed the traffic offense of failure to drive within a lane under ORS 811.370.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. PROBABLE CAUSE IN TRAFFIC STOPS. The legal question centers on whether the officer's perception that the defendant violated ORS 811.370 by failing to maintain the vehicle within a single lane was objectively reasonable, given the circumstances of an abrupt and substantial deviation into a bicycle lane without apparent hazards.

Key Phrases Driving under the influence of intoxicants. Probable cause. Failure to drive within a lane. Momentary and minor deviation. Bicycle lane occupation.

Affirmed