State v. Otto, 217 N.C. App. 79

Trooper Smith observed Megan Otto weaving within her own lane at 11:00 p.m. on Route 43 in Pitt County and followed for about three-quarters of a mile before stopping her.
Otto had not committed any traffic violations other than weaving in her lane during the observation.
The trooper knew of a Ducks Unlimited Banquet at Rock Springs Equestrian Center that evening, near which alcohol was reportedly served, though he had no direct evidence that alcohol would be served that night.
The trooper initiated the stop based on weaving within the lane and the proximity to Rock Springs, where alcohol service had been rumored by others.
Otto moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the stop, arguing the stop violated her Fourth Amendment rights due to lack of reasonable suspicion.
The superior court denied the suppression motion, Otto pled guilty while reserving appellate review of the suppression ruling, and the Court of Appeals considered the suppression issue on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion	Otto argues there was no reasonable suspicion to stop given weaving alone and no unusual hour or additional corroborating factors.	State contends weaving may contribute to suspicion when combined with other circumstances, such as proximity to drinking establishments.	Stop not supported by reasonable suspicion; suppression affirmed.
Whether Trooper Smith knew alcohol was served at Rock Springs that evening	Trial court improperly found Smith knew alcohol was served at Rock Springs; lack of direct evidence of serving that night.	Smith could rely on information from others that alcohol is sometimes served there; this information was properly considered.	The finding that Smith knew alcohol was served at Rock Springs lacks competent evidentiary support; reversed on this basis.

State v. Brooks, 337 N.C. 132 (1994) (judicial findings binding when supported by evidence)
State v. Styles, 362 N.C. 412 (2008) (reasonable, articulable suspicion required for traffic stops)
State v. Jacobs, 162 N.C.App. 251 (2004) (weaving with nearby alcohol venue supports suspicion)
State v. Watson, 122 N.C.App. 596 (1996) (weaving near nightclub at night supports suspicion)
State v. Fields, 195 N.C.App. 740 (2009) (weaving without additional factors may be insufficient)
State v. Peele, 196 N.C.App. 668 (2009) (single weaving instance near evening time near bars considered)
State v. Bond(s), 139 N.C.App. 627 (2000) (intra-lane weaving often supports impairment suspicison)
State v. Pratt, 182 Vt. 165 (2007) (collects cases on intra-lane weaving and impairment)
People v. Perez, 175 Cal.App.3d Supp. 8 (1985) (weaving near bars considered for suspicion)