Court Opinion

ID: 9543642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:47:34.814217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:49.333552
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority’s affirmance of the suspension of Steward’s driving privilege and his conviction for driving under the influence.
I dissent, however, to affirming the conviction for unsafe lane movement (IC 9-4-1-78). Accepting the majority analysis that the statute has a double thrust, there was simply no evidence adduced at trial that Steward’s movements into the adjacent lane in fact constituted a threat to the safety of himself or anyone else. There was no evidence offered of any danger created either to Steward or anyone else. The fact that he may have had no sober reason to change lanes does not ipso facto mean the changes violated the “reasonable safety” mandate which is the essence of the statutory prohibition.
I would therefore vacate the conviction for unsafe lane movement.