Court Opinion

ID: 9716110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:27:22.486709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:41.956305
License: Public Domain

MATHIAS, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I believe the stop here was not reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and was in violation of Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Indiana, which protects those areas of life Hoosiers regard as private from unreasonable police activity. See Brown v. State, 653 N.E.2d 77, 79 (Ind.1995).
The majority contends that the fact that the right-side tires of Barrett's vehicle touched the fog line was an "objective sign of driver impairment" and justified the *1031stop of Barrett's vehicle. disagree. The officer testified that he observed the vehicle's right-side tires travel on the fog line for thirty to fifty yards. Appellant's App. pp. 97-98. If the vehicle was traveling at 65 miles per hour, the tires touched the fog line for less than two Op. at 1028. I seconds. In my view, this brief touching of the fog line, without more, was not enough to establish reasonable suspicion for purposes of Article I, Section 11.4
Here, while the officer testified that he believed the driver was possibly intoxicated, he also admitted that no traffic violation occurred, that there were many reasons a driver could drift onto the fog line without being intoxicated, that he did not smell alcohol when he approached the car, and that he did not administer any field sobriety tests to the driver. Although the majority distinguishes the facts of this case from those presented in State v. Bullington, 802 N.E.2d 485 (Ind.2004), I believe the two cases are far more alike than dissimilar. In particular, the trial court in Bulington specifically found that no traffic violation had occurred, thus "the police had absolutely no reason to believe defendant had violated or was violating any law when he was stopped." Id. at 439.
Other courts facing similar factual see-narios have concluded that a brief touching of the fog line or lane line, without more, is insufficient to provide reasonable suspicion for a stop. See, e.g., United States v. Colin, 314 F.3d 439, 446 (9th Cir.2002) (car's touching the right fog line and the center yellow line each for ten seconds after legitimate lane changes did not give officer reasonable suspicion of driving under the influence); Unmited States v. Gregory, 79 F.3d 973, 978 (10th Cir.1996) (where officer did not conduct a road sobriety test after stopping the defendant for briefly crossing into the right emergency shoulder lane, he did not have reasonable suspicion that the defendant was intoxicated); United States v. Ochoa, 4 F.Supp.2d 1007, 1012 (D.Kan.1998) (single drift onto the shoulder did not justify stopping defendant); State v. Tague, 676 N.W.2d 197, 205-06 (Iowa 2004) (single incident of crossing left edge line for a brief moment did not meet reasonableness test under the state constitution); State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 219-20 (Tenn.2000) (occasional drifting from the center of the lane did not amount to reasonable suspicion). See also United States v. Freeman, 209 F.8d 464, 466-67 (6th Cir.2000) (a motor home's brief entry into the emergency lane does not constitute probable cause that the driver was intoxicated).
As the Tenth Circuit aptly observed, "[ilf failure to follow a perfect vector down the highway or keeping one's eyes on the road were sufficient reasons to suspect a person of driving while impaired, a substantial portion of the public would be subject each day to an invasion of their privacy." United States v. Lyons, 7 F.3d 973, 976 (10th Cir.1993), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d 783, 786-87 (10th Cir.1995). In light of the heightened privacy protection Hoosiers expect under Article I, Section 11, I do not believe that Barrett's innocuous conduct justified the initial stop. I therefore respectfully dissent.

. Sergeant Ruley's testimony characterized the driver's conduct as exhibiting three cues or initial indicators of impaired driving identified by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The complete list of these cues can be found at http://www.nhtsa. dot.gov/people/ injury/aleohol/dwi/ dwihtml/summary.htm (last visited November 9, 2005). I respectfully disagree with the conclusion reached by Sergeant Ruley and the majority that the driver's observed conduct manifested three of the these cues.