State v. Otto
726 S.E.2d 824, 2012 WL 2215685, 366 N.C. 134 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the totality of the circumstances, an officer has the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory traffic stop when a vehicle is observed constantly and continuously weaving within its own lane for a substantial distance, especially when this conduct occurs late at night.
Facts:
- On February 29, 2008, around 11:00 p.m., Trooper A.B. Smith was on patrol in Pitt County.
- He observed a Ford Explorer, driven by defendant Otto, coming from the general direction of the Rock Springs Equestrian Center, which was hosting a Ducks Unlimited Banquet.
- Trooper Smith had heard that the equestrian center sometimes served alcohol, but had no direct knowledge of this.
- After pulling onto the road behind Otto's vehicle, Trooper Smith followed her for approximately three-quarters of a mile.
- During this time, he observed Otto's vehicle 'constantly weaving from the center line to the fog line' within its lane of travel.
- The vehicle never crossed the center or fog lines and appeared to be traveling at the posted speed limit of fifty-five miles per hour.
- Based on these observations, Trooper Smith activated his lights and initiated a traffic stop.
- During the stop, Trooper Smith cited Otto for driving while subject to an impairing substance.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant Otto filed a motion to suppress the evidence from the traffic stop in the Superior Court of Pitt County, the trial court.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- Following the denial, Otto pleaded guilty to driving while impaired but reserved her right to appeal the court's ruling on her motion.
- Otto, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion.
- The State of North Carolina, as the appellant, appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an officer have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory traffic stop when the sole basis for the stop is the observation of a driver constantly and continuously weaving within their own lane for three-quarters of a mile at 11:00 p.m.?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hudson
Yes, an officer has reasonable suspicion under these circumstances. While weaving within one's own lane, without more, might not be sufficient, the totality of the circumstances here supports the stop. The court reasoned that the key factors creating reasonable suspicion were the constant and continuous nature of the weaving over a substantial distance (three-quarters of a mile) and the time of the incident (11:00 p.m. on a Friday night). This case is distinguishable from prior appellate decisions where weaving was only momentary or isolated. The combination of persistent erratic driving and the late hour provides a 'minimal level of objective justification' for an officer to suspect that the driver may be impaired, thus satisfying the standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio.
Concurring - Justice Newby
Yes, the officer had reasonable suspicion. However, the defendant’s constant and continuous weaving, standing alone, is sufficient to support that conclusion. The specific and articulable fact that the defendant weaved constantly for three-quarters of a mile is enough for a reasonable officer to infer potential impairment, without needing to consider additional factors like the time of night. While such conduct could be innocent, it also gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that warrants further investigation, which is all that is required under the standard from Terry v. Ohio. The late hour is not a necessary element for the stop to be constitutional.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard for what constitutes reasonable suspicion based on weaving in North Carolina. It establishes that the quality and duration of the weaving are critical factors, distinguishing between brief, isolated instances and more persistent, continuous weaving. By upholding the stop, the court provides law enforcement with a clearer basis to stop drivers exhibiting this specific type of behavior, even if no traffic infraction has occurred. The concurrence suggests an even lower threshold, indicating that some jurists believe constant weaving alone, without any other context, is sufficient for a constitutional stop.
