State v. Franklin, 2012 Ohio 3089

Defendant Richard Franklin was arrested Aug 13, 2011 for operating a vehicle while under the influence and for a marked lanes violation in Newark, Ohio.
He pled not guilty on Aug 16, 2011 and subsequently filed two Motions to Suppress, including a claim of illegal stop.
Trooper Jermaine Thaxton testified he observed Franklin’s car cross the double solid center line by a small amount and then correct back into its lane, prompting a stop around 2:42 a.m.
The stop was based solely on a suspected marked lanes violation; a video and photos from the cruiser were admitted as exhibits.
The trial court denied the Motion to Suppress, finding the vehicle crossed the center line by about 3 inches; Franklin pleaded no contest and was convicted.
The Fifth District reversed, holding Thaxton lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop for a minor marked-lanes violation; the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop for a marked lanes violation?	Franklin argues the stop was unjustified given only inconsequential movement onto the line.	Franklin contends the slight encroachment did not establish a violation or reasonable suspicion.	No; stop invalid for lack of reasonable suspicion.

Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (1999) (requirements for investigative stops; totality of circumstances)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes framework for reasonable suspicion)
State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (2008) (driving across lane boundary can create suspicion; not de minimis movement alone)
State v. Grigoryan, 2010-Ohio-2883 (2010) (drifting and brief center-line contact may be inconsequential movement)
State v. Messick, 2007-Ohio-1824 (2007) (weaving within lane can support stop if combined with other indicators)
State v. Hodge, 147 Ohio App.3d 550 (2002) (discusses limitations on recognizing marked-lane violations as basis for stops)