State v. Turner (Slip Opinion), 170 N.E.3d 842

Trooper stopped Ryan Turner on a two-lane road after observing Turner's right-side tires touch the right-hand single solid white edge line (the “fog line”).
Turner was charged with a marked-lanes violation (R.C. 4511.33) and OVI; he moved to suppress evidence obtained after the stop.
Trial court granted suppression, finding touching the fog line did not establish probable cause or reasonable, articulable suspicion for a lane violation.
The Twelfth District reversed, holding that driving on a lane line violates R.C. 4511.33(A)(1); the conflict was certified to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Ohio Supreme Court held that the single solid white edge line marks the roadway edge and — per the MUTCD and statutory scheme — only discourages or prohibits crossing it, not touching or driving on it; it reversed the Twelfth District and remanded for consideration of the State’s alternative reasonable-mistake-of-law argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Turner)	Held
Whether an officer has reasonable and articulable suspicion/probable cause to stop a vehicle under R.C. 4511.33(A)(1) when the officer observes the tires driving on but not across a marked lane line	Touching a lane line means the vehicle is not “entirely within” a single lane; touching/driving on a line violates the statute and supports a stop	Touching or nominally encroaching on the fog line does not constitute a marked-lanes violation and does not provide reasonable suspicion or probable cause	No. Touching/driving on the fog line alone does not violate R.C. 4511.33(A)(1); the stop was not justified on that basis (case reversed and remanded)
Whether the MUTCD and ODOT markings govern the meaning of the single solid white edge line for purposes of R.C. 4511.33	The statute’s plain language controls; lane lines should be treated uniformly as lane boundaries	MUTCD/ODOT definitions inform what a given marking means; the fog line marks roadway edge and only discourages or prohibits crossing	The court relied on the statutory scheme and the MUTCD: the fog line marks the roadway edge and indicates crossing is discouraged/prohibited, not touching/driving on it
Remedy / next step after reversing Twelfth District	N/A	N/A	Judgment reversed; remanded to the Twelfth District to address the State’s alternative argument that the trooper made a reasonable mistake of law that might validate the stop

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (stops justified when officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred)
Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 665 N.E.2d 1091 (Ohio 1996) (same-state precedent on traffic-stop standards)
State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406, 894 N.E.2d 1204 (2008) (officer may stop driver who repeatedly crosses edge line; provides context for lane-line stops)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (reasonable-suspicion totality-of-the-circumstances framework)
United States v. Colin, 314 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2002) (touching lane lines alone did not provide reasonable suspicion)
People v. Mueller, 127 N.E.3d 861 (Ill. App. 2018) (touching fog line and center line did not constitute lane-use violation)
State v. Cerny, 28 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. App. 2000) (touching white shoulder line not a marked-lanes violation)