State v. Fuller, 416 P.3d 957

On Dec. 6, 2015, Deputy Ballman stopped Antonia Fuller after observing her vehicle’s front passenger-side tire briefly cross the right-hand fog (white) line while traveling westbound on Highway 53 at ~10:50 p.m.
The parties stipulated the tire crossed the fog line once and that Fuller had no turn signal; Deputy Ballman testified the tire touched and crossed the fog line multiple times at preliminary hearing.
During the stop Ballman discovered Fuller lacked a valid driver’s license and insurance, arrested her, and an inventory search produced methamphetamine, prescription drugs, and paraphernalia.
Fuller moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an unlawful stop; the district court reviewed the dash-cam, accepted the stipulation, and granted suppression, finding no reasonable, articulable suspicion of a violation of Idaho Code § 49‑637(1).
The State appealed, arguing the stop was justified by suspected violation of § 49‑637(1) (failure to remain in a lane) and alternatively § 49‑630(1); the Supreme Court considered only the § 49‑637(1) argument and affirmed suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether crossing/touching the fog line alone provided reasonable suspicion to stop under Idaho Code § 49‑637(1)	The State: a tire crossing the fog line constituted a breach of lane and justified the stop	Fuller: an isolated touching or brief crossing of the fog (edge) line does not show a lane‑of‑travel violation or reasonable suspicion	Held: No. An isolated touching or brief crossing of the fog line does not, by itself, create reasonable, articulable suspicion of a § 49‑637(1) violation; suppression affirmed
Whether State may rely on § 49‑630(1) on appeal	State argued § 49‑630(1) could justify the stop	Fuller contended the issue was not raised below	Held: Not addressed — State forfeited the argument by not raising it in the district court

State v. Neal, 159 Idaho 439, 362 P.3d 514 (Idaho 2015) (edge/fog lines are not lane boundaries; touching the fog line alone doesn’t establish a § 49‑637(1) violation)
State v. Danney, 153 Idaho 405, 283 P.3d 722 (Idaho 2012) (standard of review for suppression: factual findings upheld if supported; legal application reviewed de novo)
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1981) (reasonable suspicion assessed from totality of circumstances and articulable facts)
State v. Morgan, 154 Idaho 109, 294 P.3d 1121 (Idaho 2013) (reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts)
United States v. Delgado‑Hernandez, [citation="283 F. App'x 493"] (9th Cir. 2008) (brief crossing/touching of fog line did not constitute a safety threat or a lane‑violation supporting reasonable suspicion)