People of Michigan v. Beverly Ann Kocevar, 329150

Officer observed Beverly Ann Kocevar’s vehicle tire cross a solid white fog line while driving.
Officer initiated a traffic stop after observing the crossing of the fog line.
During the stop, the officer discovered methadone in Kocevar’s vehicle.
Kocevar appealed the stop’s validity, focusing on whether driving on or crossing a fog line violates MCL 257.642(1)(a).
The majority opinion addressed an additional issue—whether the stop was unduly prolonged—even though Kocevar did not raise that issue on appeal; Judge O’Connell dissented, limiting the appeal to the fog-line question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether driving on or crossing a solid white fog line violates MCL 257.642(1)(a)	Crossing the fog line shows the vehicle was not driven "entirely within a single lane," giving the officer proper cause to stop.	Crossing a fog line does not necessarily breach the statute or provide proper cause.	Judge O’Connell would hold crossing the fog line violates MCL 257.642(1)(a) and therefore provided proper cause for the stop.
Whether the traffic stop was unduly prolonged (procedural issue raised by majority)	N/A (issue not raised by Kocevar).	N/A (issue not argued by Kocevar on appeal).	Dissent would not decide this unbriefed issue; ordinarily appellate courts should not resolve issues not raised below or on appeal.

People v. Dunbar, 499 Mich 60 (statutory interpretation requires giving effect to every word)
People v. Jamison, 292 Mich App 440 (use of dictionaries to interpret undefined statutory terms)
People v. Davis, 250 Mich App 357 (lane violation supported probable cause for a stop)
Tingley v. Kortz, 262 Mich App 583 (courts should not address issues not raised by the parties)
People v. Carines, 460 Mich 750 (declining to address unraised issues on appeal)
People v. Frazier, 478 Mich 231 (application of exclusionary-rule considerations to objectively unreasonable stops)