COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chie f Judge Fitzpa trick, Judge Willis and Senior Judge Overton Argued at Alex andria, Virginia

TRACEY ANNE RICHARDSON MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 3011-99-4 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON FEBRUARY 6, 2001 COUNTY OF PRINCE WILLIAM

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY Frank A. Hoss, Jr., Judge Mark Thomas Crossland for appellant. D. Scott Bailey, As sistant Comm onwealth's Attorney (Paul B. Eb ert, Commonwealth's Attorney; Mary Grace O'Brien, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, on brief), for appellee.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Appellant was co nvicted of driving whil e intoxicated, second or subsequent offense. On appeal, appellant conten ds that the trial court erred in denying her mo tion to suppre ss. Appellant argues that the offi cer did not have a reasonable articulable suspicion to stop her. We disa gree and affirm.
BACKGROUND At approximately 1:05 a.m. on De cember 17, 1998, Officer S. Vago ob served a vehicle travelling in th e right lane of two westbound tr avel lanes. Vago observed the right-side tires ofthe vehicle cross the solid white li ne marking the bo undary of the travel lane, just inside the ed ge of the road surface, for a distance of sevent y to eighty feet. There was a curve in the road where the tires crossed the solid white line . Vago, an experienced offi cer who had made over one hundred arrests for driving under th e influence of alcoho l in the prior year, suspected that the driv er was impaired and st opped the ve hicle. Vago conducted field sobriety tests and ar rested appellant for driving under the influence.
MOTION TO SUPPRESS "In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, 'the burden is upon [the defendant] to show that the ruling, when the evidence is considered most favorably to the Commonwealth, constituted reversible error.'" McGee v. Commonwealth , 25 Va. App. 193, 197, 487 S.E.2d 259, 261 (1997) ( en banc ) (citation omitted). While we are bound to review de

novo the ultimate questions of reasonable suspicion and probable cause, we "review findings of historical fact only for clear

error 1 and . . . give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers." Ornelas v. United States , 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996) (footnote added).

1 "In Virginia, questions of fact are binding on appeal unless 'plainly wrong.'" McGee , 25 Va. App. at 198 n.1, 487 S.E.2d at 261 n.1 (citations omitted). - 2 -"If a police officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person is engaging in, or is about to engage in, criminal activity, the officer may detain the suspect to conduct a brief investigation without violating the person's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures." McGee , 25 Va. App. at 202, 487 S.E.2d at 263. "When a court reviews whether an officer had reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop, it must view the totality of the circumstances and view those facts objectively through the eyes of a reasonable police officer with the knowledge, training, and experience of the investigating officer." Murphy v. Commonwealth , 9 Va. App. 139, 144, 384 S.E.2d 125, 128 (1989). "'[A] trained law enforcement officer may [be able to] identify criminal behavior which would appear innocent to an untrained observer.'" Freeman v. Commonwealth , 20 Va. App. 658, 661, 460 S.E.2d 261, 262 (1995) (citation omitted). "[W]eaving within a single traffic lane is an articulable fact which may give rise to a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity." Neal v. Commonwealth , 27 Va. App. 233, 239, 498 S.E.2d 422, 425 (1998). In the early morning hours, an experienced police officer saw the right-side tires of appellant's vehicle cross the solid white line near the edge of the road surface. The officer saw the vehicle being driven in this manner for seventy to eighty feet. Under these circumstances, the officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the driver was impaired, which
- 3 -justified a stop to investigate further. The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress. Affirmed.

- 4 -