Hamilton v. Lawson, CA93-09-169
| Decision Date | 02 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. CA93-09-169,CA93-09-169 |
| Citation | 94 Ohio App.3d 462,640 N.E.2d 1206 |
| Parties | CITY OF HAMILTON, Appellee, v. LAWSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Gary L. Sheets, Hamilton City Pros. Atty. and Samuel D. Borst, Asst. City Pros. Atty., Hamilton, for appellee.
John T. Willard, Hamilton, for appellant.
On April 22, 1993, defendant-appellant, Curtis Lawson, was convicted in Hamilton Municipal Court of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19. Lawson now appeals setting forth the following assignment of error:
"An officer's observation of a driver making one small weave within his lane of traffic is not sufficient to give that officer reasonable and articulable suspicion that the driver was driving under the influence of alcohol, as would justify a stop of the vehicle, particularly when the substantial portion of road traveled had unmarked lanes."
Lawson argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We agree.
In order for an initial stop to be valid, a police officer must have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the motorist is operating a vehicle in violation of the law. Delaware v. Prouse (1979), 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660. The propriety of the initial stop is to be viewed in light of the totality of the circumstances. State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 524 N.E.2d 489. An officer's observation of a motorist making one small weave within his lane of travel is insufficient to give the officer a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the motorist is driving under the influence of alcohol. Mason v. Loveless (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 264, 266-267, 622 N.E.2d 6, 7.
Lawson was pulled over by Butler County Sheriff's Deputy Brian Bussel at approximately 2:15 a.m. on January 3, 1993. According to Deputy Bussel's testimony, Lawson was traveling on State Route 127, which is a four-lane road. Lawson was in the right-hand lane heading north. Deputy Bussel first testified that Lawson went left of center, but on cross-examination Deputy Bussel clarified that left of center meant only that Lawson crossed the dotted white line that separates the two northbound lanes. Lawson did not cross the yellow center line into the southbound lane of travel. Further, Lawson crossed the dotted white line only one time.
Lawson then turned onto Augsperger Road, which has no markings. Deputy Bussel testified that Lawson completed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Adam Ennedy
... ... See Brite, supra at 522, ... 698 N.E.2d at 481; also see Hamilton v. Lawson ... (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 462, 463, 640 N.E.2d 1206, 1207; ... Mason v ... ...
-
State v. Keith B. Hawes, 96-LW-0518
...that if it were present, a speeding violation would provide reasonable suspicion to perform a stop. See Drogi, supra, at 469; Lawson, supra, at 464; Gullett, supra, at Appellant's contention that Sgt. Waldron somehow lost the reasonable suspicion to stop appellant because appellant reduced ......
-
State v. Thomas M. Beard
... ... See State v. Drogi (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 466, 645 ... N.E.2d 153; City of Hamilton v. Lawson (1994), 94 ... Ohio App.3d 462, 640 N.E.2d 1206; City of Mason v ... ...
-
State v. Brite
...colleagues in other appellate districts. See, e.g., State v. Johnson (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 37, 663 N.E.2d 675; Hamilton v. Lawson (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 462, 640 N.E.2d 1206; Mason v. Loveless (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 264, 622 N.E.2d 6. This is not to suggest that weaving within a single la......