REIBER, C.J. In this driving under the influence case, the State appeals the granting of defendant's motion to exclude evidence collected from a traffic violation stop of his car. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case because it concluded that the trooper who conducted the stop did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that defendant committed a traffic violation. We reverse and remand.
The inquiry in cases involving traffic violation stops is merely whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion of a wrongdoing, not whether the defendant actually committed a wrongdoing.
Under 23 V.S.A. § 1031, drivers are generally required to drive on the right half of the roadway. If the road has a center line, touching the center line is not in itself a traffic violation, but any crossing of the center line—no matter how slight—is a traffic violation.
The court specifically found that defendant crossed the center line. Crossing the center line gave the trooper reasonable suspicion that defendant committed a traffic violation as soon as this crossing occurred.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Under 23 V.S.A. § 1031, drivers are generally required to drive on the right half of the roadway. If the road has a center line, touching the center line is not in itself a traffic violation, but any crossing of the center line—no matter how slight—is a traffic violation.
The court specifically found that defendant crossed the center line. Crossing the center line gave the trooper reasonable suspicion that defendant committed a traffic violation as soon as this crossing occurred.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
SCOVT NOTE: 23 V.S.A. § 1031, driving to right, does not apply on a multi-lane
roadway restricted to one-way traffic. See Id. § 1031(a)(4); State v. Sinquell-Gainey, 2022 VT 19 [filed 5/6/2022].
No comments:
Post a Comment