Background
An officer saw Daniel Lloyd Messer’s vehicle pass another vehicle at a high rate of speed and then followed it for approximately half a mile. The officer observed Messer cross into a bicycle lane twice. The officer’s dash camera captured the second crossing, during which the vehicle swerved into the bicycle lane rather than merely touching the dividing line.
Believing that Messer had failed to drive within a single lane in violation of ORS 811.370(1)(a), the officer stopped him. The encounter led to Messer’s arrest and charges for misdemeanor driving under the influence of intoxicants and reckless driving. After the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence from the stop, Messer conditionally pleaded guilty to DUII while preserving his right to appeal; the reckless-driving charge was dismissed.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the officer had probable cause to stop Messer for failing to drive within a lane. Although Oregon law permits momentary and minor lane deviations, Messer crossed into the bicycle lane twice within a short period, and the trial court found that both departures were substantial enough to endanger a bicycle rider. Nothing in the record suggested that remaining in the lane was impracticable.
The court concluded that the circumstances resembled cases involving repeated or significant lane departures rather than a single incidental crossing of a fog line. It also explained that the absence of a bicyclist in the bicycle lane did not matter because ORS 811.370(1)(a) requires drivers to remain within a single lane as nearly as practicable regardless of whether a specific person was endangered. The court therefore affirmed the denial of suppression and Messer’s DUII conviction.
Key Takeaways
- Two substantial bicycle-lane crossings within a short distance supported probable cause for a violation of ORS 811.370(1)(a).
- The statutory tolerance for momentary and minor deviations did not cover Messer’s repeated, non-de-minimis departures.
- A lane departure need not endanger a person actually present to support a traffic stop under the statute.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the factual boundary between a permissible minor lane deviation and conduct that gives an officer probable cause to initiate a traffic stop. The number, duration, and extent of the deviations, along with whether road conditions made compliance impracticable, remain central to that analysis.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as permitted by ORAP 10.30(1).