State v. Chavez-ZbarraState v. Chavez-Zbarra
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Hill
This is а State appeal of a district court’s order suppressing all evidence seized by a police officer after he made a traffic stop of the defendant for crossing the center line on a two-lane road. Because the court hеre confused failing to drive on the right half of the road, in violation of
The deputy saw the defendant’s car cross the center line.
Barton County Sheriff s Deputy Thomas Fischer was patrolling northbound on U.S. Highway 281 just inside the city limits of Great Bend a litde аfter 2 a.m. one morning in September 2008. The deputy saw a southbound Dodge Durango on Highway 281 cross the center line and then return to the sоuthbound lane. Highway
281 is a two-lane road at that location. The deputy turned around, activated his emergency lights, and stoppеd the Dodge because it had crossed the center line. The driver was the defendant, Joseph C. Chavez-Zbarra. Eventually, after further investigation, the deputy arrested the defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol, defined by
The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence based on his argument that the deputy lacked reasоnable suspicion for the traffic stop. The district court agreed and sustained the motion. While making its ruling the court referred to a Cоurt of Appeals case:
“Unfortunately, this is a case, after the testimony of Deputy Fischer, that we had just recently the same way is that it falls exactly into the decision that was handed down by the Court of Appeals that says that stopping a vehicle for one-time drifting across the lane, the center of the lane does not give reason to stop a vehicle and does not present reasonable cause to stop the vehicle and check for anything, and this goes right there. So — and it does away with the reasonableness of the stop, and I have to follow that, and this is — this takes care of the motion to suppress. And it’s a very •— well, it’s not that recent anymore, but it’s fairly recent, the case, and I cannot teE you what the name of the case is, but I can give it to you this аfternoon.”
In its written order, the court suppressed “all evidence seized subsequent to the initial illegal stop of the defendant’s vehicle.”
In this appeal, the State contends there was reasonable suspicion to stop Chavez-Zbarra for a violаtion of
We employ an unlimited standard of review.
The parties do not dispute the facts here which leaves simply a question of law. See
State v. Thompson,
The reason for the traffic stop in this case was an apparent violation of
“(a) Upon all rоadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:
(1) When overtaking and pаssing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement;
(2) When an obstruction exists making it neсessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway, except that any person so doing shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard.”
Our Supreme Court has most recently considered this statute in
State v. Hopper,
Likewise, it is undisputed that Chavez-Zbarra crossed the center line of the highway on a two-lane road. There is no evidence to support the application of any exception listed in
Even though the district court gave no citation for the case it was relying upon, it seems likely it was referring to
Ross.
When Ross’ vehicle was stopped after it crossed the fog line one time, a panel of this court held the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for a violation of
Simply put,
Ross
is inapplicable here. First, Ross allegedly violated
Second, Ross’ violation occurred when he crossed the “white line at the right edge of thе
outside lane,”
indicating he was driving on a road with two lanes traveling in the same direction. (Emphasis added.)
The district court erred when it sustained the motion to suppress on these grounds.
Reversed and remanded.