Opinion ID: 522980
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Erratic Driving

Text: 12 We have also held that erratic driving is a factor that can properly support a finding of founded suspicion. See United States v. Rocha-Lopez, 527 F.2d 476, 478 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 977, 96 S.Ct. 2181, 48 L.Ed.2d 802 (1976); see also United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2582, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975) (The driver's behavior may be relevant, as erratic driving or obvious attempts to evade officers can support a reasonable suspicion. (citations omitted)). In the instant case, the government points to two examples of appellant's erratic driving: (1) Robert L left the scene of the accident at a quicker pace than other traffic; and (2) when he saw the patrol car approaching, he swerved from the left lane into the right as if attempting to blend into traffic. 13 Robert L's deviations from normal driving were, it seems, relatively de minimis. Agent Truty acknowledged that appellant's departure from the accident scene in no way amounted to peeling out or other disruptive behavior. In addition, he admitted that Robert L's later lane change caused no traffic disturbance. First, we note that no traffic laws were broken; although this is not determinative, it is significant. See United States v. Ogilvie, 527 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1975) (noting that no traffic laws were violated when finding no founded suspicion); United States v. Mallides, 473 F.2d 859, 860 (9th Cir.1973) (same). Second, at least as far as his sudden lane change is concerned, Robert L's conduct seems perfectly reasonable given that a marked patrol car was approaching in the lane behind him at 90 miles per hour.